Description

The purpose of this WikiProject is to bring a level of standardization of format to Wikipedia articles concerning college sports in the USA. This would include any articles about specific college sports (such as List of NCAA Division I men's soccer programs, List of NCAA Division I softball programs, etc.); those sports' seasons (such as 2014 NCAA Division I men's soccer season) and their championships (such as 2014 NCAA Division I Men's Soccer Championship). It would include articles about the several collegiate sports governing associations (National Collegiate Athletic Association, National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics, National Christian College Athletic Association, United States Collegiate Athletic Association, National Junior College Athletic Association) and the various college conferences/leagues (i.e. Big Ten Conference, Ivy League, etc.). It would also include the articles concerning the sports programs of the member institutions of the associations (such as SIU Edwardsville Cougars), any specific single-sport article for said institution (such as SIU Edwardsville Cougars baseball or SIU Edwardsville Cougars softball), and any single-season article for said sports (such as 2014 SIU Edwardsville Cougars softball team). There is currently no standard format for creating and/or maintaining these pages. The major areas of concern have been and continue to be articles describing collegiate conferences and member institutions' athletic programs. Two articles describing two very similar schools or leagues can be a different as night and day, and when efforts have been made to standardize, those changes have often been met with resistance.The use of standard formats developed through consultation should eliminate problems and make for better Wikipedia articles. GWFrog (talk) 20:11, 18 June 2015 (UTC) Edited to remove what seems to be the major objection... GWFrog (talk) 01:25, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Partial list of important pages and categories for this proposed group

List of WikiProjects currently on the talk pages of those articles
Please invite these and any other similar groups to join the discussion about this proposal. See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Directory to find similar WikiProjects.
Why do you want to start a new group, instead of joining one of these existing groups?
I am already a member of two of them, and the items enumerated in the above description are not being covered by any of those WikiProjects.

Support

Also, specify whether or not you would join the project.

  1. GWFrog (talk) 20:11, 18 June 2015 (UTC) Green tickY[reply]
  2. JonRidinger (talk) 22:31, 18 June 2015 (UTC) Green tickY[reply]
  3. Sphilbrick (talk) 22:31, 18 June 2015 (UTC) Green tickY[reply]
  4. Dale Arnett (talk) 23:59, 18 June 2015 (UTC) Green tickY[reply]
  5. Corkythehornetfan (talk) 00:47, 19 June 2015 (UTC) Green tickY[reply]
  6. Quidster4040 (talk) 17:20, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:52, 22 June 2015 (UTC) Green tickY[reply]
  8. Dafoeberezin3494 (talk) 02:11, 22 June 2015 (UTC) Green tickY[reply]
  9. SCMatt33 (talk) 15:57, 22 June 2015 (UTC) Green tickY[reply]
  10. Ejgreen77 (talk) 09:37, 6 July 2015 (UTC) Green tickY[reply]

Oppose

  1. Please see my extended comments below. I cannot support the creation of this new WikiProject in the form proposed. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:52, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. As much as I would love to support this project, due to conflicts with summer classes and other life events I do not have the time to be able to complete this to the best of my ability. I have all the confidence this project will fare well without my assistance. --NJ Jurrjens (talk) 02:13, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per Dirtlawyer's explanation below. It seems reasonable and he is a very trustworthy editor. With that being said, I withdraw my support, and now oppose this idea. Corkythehornetfan 02:19, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Objections similar to DirtLawyer's, but I'll elaborate below. Kithira (talk) 17:38, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose. Each sport is different and needs a different set of standards to oversee it. Outside of applying a basic beginning, which is already done, there is no need to have a standard. This is already done with football, men's & women's basketball, soccer, and baseball. You could combine specific sports to work with each other, like softball and baseball, but that is as far as it needs to go. I also think you are overreaching in saying each conference and team page doesn't use the same format. They DO use the same format. The only difference is the amount of detail an editor is willing to put into the said pages. So I oppose it because they are already done in the same format. Finally, I'll oppose it because while you are trying to use it to focus on colleges, it doesn't take into account collegiate sports that aren't sponsored by the main collegiate groups. For example BYU sponsors men's hockey, rugby, men's soccer, women's rugby and other collegiate sports. However they don't participate in the NCAA for these events. Your focus wouldn't include them. Bigddan11 (talk) 12:58, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Comments in response to opposition

NJ Jurrjens, this doesn't sounds like you actually oppose this project, just that you don't have time to support is in the foreseeable future. Jweiss11 (talk) 19:56, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're talking apples and oranges there, Bigddan11... BYU's non-NCAA sports are not truly collegiate sports, even though they are sponsored by the university... They are essentially semi-pro teams owned and operated by BYU... So, no they would not be covered, just as summer baseball and soccer leagues sponsored by the professional major leagues are not covered under any umbrella of collegiate sports, although the players are college athletes... which is just peaches and lemons to go along with the apples and oranges... And, no, there is no standard for conference and team pages, the differences between the quality of pages for two very similar programs are not so much the result of the the efforts of the editors as they are caused by the lack of standards as to what should be included or excluded and how the included factors should be presented... GWFrog (talk) 06:25, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You and I are going to have to agree to disagree, because from what I've seen a standard is always included. That standard includes the university, when the university started playing, and their records over the years, if they are available. It also includes a list of sports they play/compete in and, f they have an individual page for that event, it links to it. It also includes a list of coaches, again if available. For a conference it always includes when it started, what schools are in the conference, and historical runs by teams to events like the NCAA Baseball World Series or the Final Four. Many times it also includes a list of famous alums from that conference. If those aren't included, they are being done correctly in the first place and are oftentimes nominated for deletion. I'll also point out a standard that is widely ignored, and that is that non-first hand sources should be used if at all possible. Don't ask me why Wiki doesn't use firsthand sources as the primary source, but they ask for us to use other sources.Bigddan11 (talk) 13:56, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Contrary to the certainty of folks like Dirtlawyer1 and Bigddan11 that further standardization is not needed, not only are there NO STANDARDS currently existent, but there is still at least one Division I team that does not even have an athletics page... I put forward this proposal in June & it has gone nowhere, because some people have preconceived notions that are actually totally false, and the idea is spinning its wheels because of wrong-headed notions... GWFrog (talk) 21:55, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

I do not, at the moment, have a strong opinion on whether this entity should be an umbrella organization, a so-called "super project", a subproject, or some other animal. However, I am strongly in support of the notion that this entity should issue recommendations, as opposed to assuming the authority to override the existing projects. I'd like to see more consistency in format, but if a sensible idea is floated and it is good enough it should be accepted by the participating organizations. If it is not accepted that may be assigned that it wasn't good enough. If that approach fails, that may be a need for a mandated approach but that's an extremely big deal, and won't happen simply because Ia handful of editors create a new project. Recommendations – yes, authority to mandate – no.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:20, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
More