Share to: share facebook share twitter share wa share telegram print page

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football

Shortcut

Proposed deletion: List of NAIA national football championship series appearances by team

~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 17:25, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did the merge as suggested from the deletion discussion. This was my first merge, so if someone wouldn't mind looking over it to make sure I did it correctly, I would appreciate it. Esb5415 (talk) (C) 14:02, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CfDs

I've a nominated two categories related to junior college sports for renaming. Please see the discussions below.

Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 01:37, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Both of these nominations have been relisted and could use more input:

Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 03:58, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These CfDs are still outstanding and could use some more input from subject experts here. Please weigh in. Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 20:47, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are both still outstanding and now the Category:Two-year college sports in the United States discussion has been relisted for a third time. Jweiss11 (talk) 15:02, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

mvp_year and captain_year fields for Infobox college sports team season

On Template:Infobox college sports team season, there are fields called mvp_year and captain_year for the year of the team's captain(s) and mvp(s). The template documentation indicates that these should be used for the ordinal year the given player held the title of team mvp or team captain. In practice, there's been some confusion about these fields, as sometimes they have been populated with the class (junior, senior, etc.) of the player. These fields are rarely used. Some of the more recent Michigan football seasons, like 2023 Michigan Wolverines football team, are a few instances where they are used. The data for these fields is pretty obscure and rather unnecessary, in my opinion. Any objections if we delete these fields from the template? Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 03:57, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Forget editor documention, a reader might assume it was the year that they were playing for the team, not years as captain or MVP. And probably rarely sourced what the first year was. —Bagumba (talk) 06:25, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's support for deletion? Jweiss11 (talk) 01:45, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Barring a compelling rationale, yes, delete. —Bagumba (talk) 02:20, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we're going to get one. If there are no objections in the next few days, I will move ahead with deleting these fields. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:42, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since there have been no objections, I will move ahead with deleting this fields. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:28, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RFC: What action, if any, should be done with the following class of articles?

Hi there, as I saw some suggestions in the AfD discussion here, due to the scope of the request, and the fact some people seemingly are opposed to my proposal, here's the RfC.

What action, if any, should we do with the following class of articles that are about seasons of American football college teams? Szmenderowiecki (talk) 18:39, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Background

While clicking random articles, I stumbled upon an article about one of the NYU Violets seasons that had a notability tag and was just one sentence long. So I started to investigate the seasons articles. A lot of them have this template:

The [year] [college_team_name] football team was an American football team that represented [college_name] as an independent during the [year] college football season. In their [cardinal_number] year under head coach [coach_name], the team compiled a [win-loss-tie] record. Optionally: a random and rather trivial fact about the team during that season For some articles: [college_team_name] was ranked at No. [cardinal_number_2] (out of [team_number] college football teams) in the final rankings under the Litkenhous Difference by Score system for [year].

Table of scores, which contains the only sources or almost all of the article sources; the vast majority, if not all, are news coverage immediately after the event and are thus primary.

I believe that the articles violate several policies and guidelines, including:

  • WP:RSPRIMARY/WP:PSTS: Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources, i.e., a document or recording that relates to or discusses information originally presented elsewhere. For scores, only primary sources are used; in other parts of the article, the situation isn't much better.
  • WP:N: The general notability guideline mandates that sources be secondary or tertiary to demonstrate notability (see also WP:PSTS). Because most articles contain no secondary or tertiary sources, nor do I think it is likely that they exist, there is no individual notability for each season per GNG. It is very unlikely that college football team seasons pass SNG (specifically WP:NSEASONS) because college football teams are not professional, and they definitely do not after 1920, because that's when a higher football league appeared. To illustrate the absurdity of the situation, I read seasons articles where at best 1,000 people attended to its games (1891 Dartmouth football team) or articles about Division III college teams that only get created because they get to playoffs within that division (1993 Frostburg State Bobcats football team), but even that appears not to be obligatory (2022 Tufts Jumbos football team). While we are at it, we could just as well create seasons articles about Gazmyas (you will see what I mean). Even being in Division I FBS - the highest league in American football - does not prevent many teams from getting bad seasons articles, which are basically just tables with scores (only primary sources) and an infobox. IMHO that's a disservice to the fans of these teams - who are, as I guess, the most likely readers of articles like these. No wonder that most of these articles don't even get an average of 2 (two) pageviews per day, and many don't even get 1.
  • WP:NOTADATABASE: Essentially these articles would not have existed were it not for the scores table. While the meaning of the data in the table is fairly clear, so it's not really a case of WP:NOTSTATS, there doesn't appear to be any other purpose than just to have a score table, which is not good enough for an encyclopedia. Some people may say that there are sources out there and these articles are expandable and salvageable, but even then:
  • WP:PAGEDECIDE: even if the topic appears to be notable, it doesn't always mean that the best way to cover this is in standalone articles. I don't see a realistic way for the articles to go beyond stub status, and even if there is, the articles are likely to be so short for a long time that it still makes little sense to create standalone articles.

During the AfD, I got pushback on the idea that nominating five sets of articles that were all of terrible quality was a good idea (basically for WP:TRAINWRECK reasons, which should not apply here because I am agnostic as to the resolution of the problem; deletion, consolidation, refactoring, draftification, whatever). One editor suggested that I nominate each of them separately, which would be feasible for 5 or 10 articles, but not with potentially thousands. Chances are that any random article you click in Category:College football seasons by team, after you navigate to your team of interest, is a stub. There are some exceptions; from what I saw there were OK articles about Pittsburg Steelers and good articles about five or so early seasons of Navy Midshipmen, but the vast majority of others was just stubs, or stubs with tables stacked one upon another, which isn't much better. Another editor said that we have a long-standing consensus that topics like 1926 NYU pass GNG (it was only improved after I started the AfD) I was presented with examples of good articles about football seasons - 1884 Navy or 2009 Michigan, for example, but they are few and far between.

For this argument, I'm being accused of obtuseness on my talk page. I asked the regulars to choose a couple of teams to say where the issues are. Apparently articles like these are said to be within the consensus of AMF for ~20 years as acceptable, but local consensus cannot override the core policy of having to primarily rely on secondary sources. I asked the AMF regulars themselves to evaluate any given region and tell me what they think about the seasons articles, and most of my concerns were dismissed because "they are an FBS team!" or "a perfect score in Division III is a-OK for establishing notability" - which IMHO sounds preposterous for me - at this rate we could just start writing about how seniors trash all other football players in Podunk High School, or "look, this article is 10KB and has 20 sources" - most of which are simply news reports just after the match to support adding the score in the table. Initially, my issue was indeed to delete them, but that's not my point anymore. Instead, I want editors to look into any way to improve the presentation of content.

Cbl62 has presented me two books about Rutgers to defend the assertion that we absolutely need seasons articles. These books are exactly what we need. Not that I saw them used much in the seasons articles. In fact, my argument is that assurances that "we'll eventually fix this issue, bear with us while we spend thousands of hours improving the content" ring hollow because we have tons of 5-, 7-, 10-year-old stubs that haven't been expanded yet, and new stubs are being created. The community is patently unable to maintain all of the articles at once without overstretching themselves; and because their consensus appears to be contrary to the policies and guidelines mentioned above, I ask others to weigh in. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 18:39, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The class of articles being discussed - this is just the northern and central East Coast, because there's so much of it

Note: ? means the season article has some qualities that give it a somewhat acceptable quality - statistics that could be formulated in prose, some info about the season etc. Years without any additional qualifiers suggest these articles are stubs - i.e. have at most a couple of sentences and do not really describe the season; it is exclusively, or mainly, concerned with noting results of football games, but not describing them or showing how this is in any way notable. It does not necessarily mean that the topic is not notable at all - after all, notability is about the topic's prominence and not about the state of the article - but that it has pretty serious quality issues and is unlikely to get expanded to an acceptable state in the medium perspective; in other words, something has to be done with the articles because this will not do.

Northern New England:

Massachusetts:


Connecticut and Rhode Island:

Downstate New York:

Upstate New York:


Pennsylvania (South-Eastern):


Pennsylvania (rest of state):


New Jersey:


Maryland, Delaware and DC:


West Virginia:


Virginia:

Other:

Selection and review criteria

Articles reviewed are exclusively articles about seasons of collegiate American football teams. Individual games, articles about the competitions as a whole or rivalries were not reviewed. Due to the breadth of review, only 14 jurisdictions were taken into account: Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Maryland, Delaware, West Virginia, Virginia and the District of Columbia. All divisions were taken into account. Review was done manually based on the state of articles as of 15-16 Feb 2025

Articles that are without the question mark are those whose quality is so bad something must be done. Examples: 1882 Harvard Crimson football team, 1897 NYU Violets football team, 1908 Georgetown Blue and Gray football team, 1920 Virginia Orange and Blue football team, 1927 West Virginia Mountaineers football team, 1934 Washington College Shoremen football team, 1945 Camp Detrick Army Chemists football team, 1954 Villanova Wildcats football team, 1961 Lebanon Valley Flying Dutchmen football team, 1974 Rutgers Scarlet Knights football team, 1993 Marshall Thundering Herd football team, 2015 Central Connecticut Blue Devils football team, 2023 Delaware Fightin' Blue Hens football team

Years with the question marks are years where there may be some possibility to save the article (IMHO of course) because there is ample notability and the quality isn't terrible. For example, most 2024 articles have statistics tables that may constitute a valid basis for an article, because they don't just note a score, even if some of those table are unfilled for whatever reason. Other articles have sourced descriptions of games.

Szmenderowiecki (talk) 18:39, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Consider starting with one decade of one program. Do an individual nomination of a season. If merged or deleted, rinse and repeat on a few more. If results are continuously to not keep, consider a few multi-page noms. If a full decade ends up not being kept, reconvene on what conclusions can be drawn for efficient follow-up.—Bagumba (talk) 19:57, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem like those Rutgers books are actually independent? The first is by a former Rutgers football player, the second is by a Rutgers employee. They don't represent attention from "the world at large". JoelleJay (talk) 22:07, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If it wasnt self-published, it seems to be an indication that the publisher believed the topic was worthy of "attention". —Bagumba (talk) 15:31, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't change the lack of independence. Autobiographies don't become independent simply through being published reputably. JoelleJay (talk) 17:17, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. I was confusing with WP:SPS. —Bagumba (talk) 17:30, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have offered my thoughts on your talk page but I'll repeat a few key points here. Focusing on hundreds and thousands of articles at once does not advance the ball. I don't think a mass RfC is necessary or appropriate. There are, as in any area of Wikipedia, articles that fail notability standards or that need improvement. That said, I absolutely disagree that this is a "Lugnuts II" situation as you suggest.
  • Comment For now, I'd like to clear up a few misconceptions offered above in the RFC posting. First, the notability of college football didn't suddenly change in 1920 when the American Professional Football Association, later renamed as the National Football League (NFL), was founded. There was professional football prior to 1920, largely in the state of Ohio and Pennsylvania, and the early years of the NFL didn't look much different from pro football prior to 1920. The top-end of college football remained better covered by the media, better attended, and essentially more prestigious probably until the 1950s. Second, none of the college football regulars like me or Cbl62 think that 2022 Tufts Jumbos football team should be a stand-alone article. That article was created by by a relatively new editor who hasn't participated in discussion here. You can read the comment I left on that editor's talk page here recommending that such articles not be created in that form. Third, with respect to the description of "obtuseness" above, that was specifically in response to Szmenderowiecki's failure to make a distinction in notability between 1) 1873 NYU Violets football team, a micro, proto-season that apparently and probably garnered little-to-no coverage in contemporary periodicals, and 2) 2021 Cincinnati Bearcats football team, a season for team that made the final four of the top tier of college football and has garnered extensive, national coverage. And there was also a failure by Szmenderowiecki to recognize that 1926 NYU Violets football team and 1927 NYU Violets football team should be assumed to have more or less the same level of notability, despite the fact that the 1927 article is just a short lead plus a well-sourced schedule table, while the 1926 article has substantive body development. The inherent notability of a subject is independent of the circumstantial level of work that's been done about that subject here on Wikipedia. Finally, as for the suggestions that "assurances...ring hollow because we have tons of 5-, 7-, 10-year-old stubs that haven't been expanded yet", well there's no time limit on Wikipedia; see Wikipedia:NOTIMELIMIT. And yes, we could use more help developing this content! Jweiss11 (talk) 02:02, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been away from the project for a few years but some of you may remember me as an editor who contributed to the Season Articles Campaign. Let me add my perspective to what Jweiss11 said above about notability.
    The pages I worked on were generally Ivy League and Patriot League teams. Today they are members of Division I FCS, what you might call the second tier of college football. Some of these teams are in big metro areas (Boston, New York, Philadelphia) and some are in relatively small towns (Ithaca, Hanover, Easton). Yet I didn't go far for my independent sources; I relied on the newspaper clippings readily available at Newspapers.com and in a couple public library databases to which I had access. In many cases this meant that I did not have access to the "local" newspaper covering the specific town where a given university was located. And yet I can tell you that for the time period, say, 1920 to 2000, I had no problem at all finding WP:SIGCOV for each and every one of these teams. And I'll bet that's true of every Division I FBS and perhaps every Division I FCS program across the country.
    Yes, there are several college football season articles that lack references to SIGCOV. But the notability of a subject is not based on the presence of SIGCOV references; it is based upon the fact that SIGCOV exists. My experience looking for coverage of college football teams in the subset of contemporary newspapers that are easily available online leads me to confidence that for all Division I programs, the SIGCOV does exist -- often online. The solution is not to delete the page. The solution is to find the sources. ``` t b w i l l i e ` $1.25 ` 02:37, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Toll Booth Willie: Truly great to hear from you. Hope you'll consider becoming a regular contributor again! Cbl62 (talk) 03:02, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A few additional thoughts on the points raised by Szmenderowiecki in the "Background" section:
    • Re WP:RSPRIMARY, I disagree with the characterization of newspaper game reports as "primary sources." A sportwriter is independent of the participants in the event, and most definitely is contributing "analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas" observed at the event (as listed at WP:SECONDARY). I'm sure there are some references out there that cite newspaper boxscores or non-bylined writeups (which at some levels of play may, or may not, be based on nothing more than a desk editor's phone conversation with one of the coaches or some other university spokesperson). I agree that these would be primary sources. But the majority of what I've observed as newspaper-related sources on Division I team season articles are bylined stories written by professional sportswriters.
    • Re "Apparently articles like these are said to be within the consensus of AMF for ~20 years as acceptable": Let's be clear what is meant by "acceptable." Acceptable as an end-state, A-rated fine example of quality Wikipedia coverage? No. But nobody at WP:CFB is saying that. What they're saying is that many of these articles -- such as seasons of the NYU Violets, for years a top-tier college football program in the nation's largest media market -- are acceptable topics in terms of notability. So they merit having an article. If they deserve a better article than they have, that's a reason to improve the article, not a reason to delete it.
    • Re "The community is patently unable to maintain all of the articles at once without overstretching themselves": You'll find this problem all over Wikipedia. Not enough volunteers. Not enough expertise among volunteers. Not enough ease of access to sources. Many articles about state legislators and former mayors of midsized cities are woefully bare. Many articles about bestselling works of literature lack even the level of analysis that you'd expect in a contemporary newspaper review -- or the Wikipedia article doesn't exist at all. Many articles about scientific topics are written in such a specialized and obtuse language as to be incomprehensible to dolts like me -- in part because "the community is pantently unable" reliably to find wiki-editors who are both scientifically knowledgeable and engaging writers of English prose, "without overstretching themselves." Again, the solution is not to delete substandard content but rather to improve it, acknowledging that given the overstretched nature of the Wikipedia editor community -- not just the WP:CFB community -- this will take some time. ``` t b w i l l i e ` $1.25 ` 03:18, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Re first point, in the articles cited, the reporters are close to an event. The original material is the game itself, but this line of argument would basically lead us to the conclusion that any game description is secondary, and the primary sources would only be videos. Necessarily, reporters at least until the 1960s had to be eyewitnesses of the events. And even after that, that would definitely fall within the breaking news reports. They must include some evaluation or interpretation, but this doesn't mean that such analysis makes a source predominantly secondary. A whole different matter would be if the editors unearthed a sports magazine that made a retrospective article on the performance of the college team in the season, but that's not what is happening.
    Re second point. are acceptable topics in terms of notability. So they merit having an article. -> and that's the issue here, because WP:PAGEDECIDE, or WP:N in general, says this needn't be the case. Notability is a necessary, but not a sufficient condition, for article creation. With the quality they have for now, they shouldn't be standalone. But they are free to split once they find enough time to expand it to the point splitting would be necessary.
    Re third point, better have no article than make a half-arsed attempt to cover something, not doing it well, and still wasting hundreds of hours unearthing hundred-year-old newspapers. Surely there must have been magazines that catered to the interests of football aficionados? It's capitalism after all, c'mon. Someone must have published something like that.
    I get the pain of not having enough time, having taken poor articles to GAs, but that's not an excuse for producing substandard content, either. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 03:43, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    On the first point, reporters are physically proximate to the event but they are not part of the event. The distinction between primary and secondary sources is not physical or temporal but rather a matter of perspective. An ex-president writing his memoirs decades later and miles away is still a primary source for events that happened to him during his political career. He was part of those events. But a reporter writing about a politician's speech, minutes after it was delivered, sitting at a folding table a stone's throw from the podium, is a secondary source; her journalistic account will pick and choose among what was said and her observations of how it was received in order to synthesize an interpretation -- the same process used by professional historians and other writers of unimpeachably secondary (and tertiary) sources. Professional sportswriters do the same thing. It's impossible in 700 words to describe every play, every bit of atmosphere, every implication of an entire football game. Necessarily sportswriters, and their editors, are standing apart from the action and picking and choosing what to tell.
    Regarding WP:PAGEDECIDE I can agree; and so, from my reading of comments here and at your talk page, can everyone else from WP:CFB. At each turn in this discussion, editors have pointed to some of your examples and said, "you're right, that program doesn't deserve independent season articles, we should consolidate those." The debate is over where to place the threshold for splitting a "era" coverage into several "season" pages. Though for what it's worth, I don't consider a single page covering 10 years of notable seasons, each of which is represented by a couple paragraphs and a game results table, to be much of a difference from having 10 separate stubs of the sort you seem to disfavor ... other than my impression that the "10 separate stubs" format would feel, to me, to be a better invitation to other editors to expand coverage of each year's team.
    Respectfully (and I mean it), I think we have to agree to disagree on the third point. If a topic is notable I'd rather have a stub than a redlink. ``` t b w i l l i e ` $1.25 ` 04:11, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Accounts by witnesses of an event are primary sources... that's what the game recaps are. They reflect the individual viewpoint of a participant or observer. JoelleJay (talk) 17:27, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Having re-read WP:PSTS closely I can see the point you're making, and I'm forced to admit that Wikipedia's definition of these terms does not support the bright line I've been drawing between "primary - part of the events" vs. "secondary - neutral observer of the events." So apologies to anyone put off by my strident tone elsewhere on this page.
    However, I also don't see anything in the PSTS definition to suggest that game reports are definitely primary sources. Definitionally they seem to be in a gray area between primary and secondary. Consider:
    Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on. Game reports are not written by people directly involved; they are written by neutral observers. Though both terms are inaccurate, working press function much more as trained "historians" of a sporting contest than as mere "witnesses."
    For Wikipedia's purposes, breaking news stories are also considered to be primary sources. This is the best PSTS argument in favor of treating game reports as primary sources. And as such I wouldn't consider a midgame tweet or "breaking news" headline a secondary source. But for a news event as simple as a football game, I think the time elapsed between end of game and publication of story, and the amount of third-party editing intervening at a professional news outlet like a daily newspaper, guard against the risk of error and lack of perspective that cause PSTS to classify "breaking news" as a primary source.
    [A secondary source] contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. All true of game stories (the "primary sources" in this case including statements of coaches or players that the sportswriter interviews immediately after the game). Contra Szmenderowiecki above, I don't think considering game stories as "secondary sources" would mean all accounts of a game other than raw video are "secondary sources." A scorebook or listing showing every play that happened -- or even edited down to just every scoring play -- with no attempt to place these events in narrative context -- is definitely a "primary source." A series of interviews with fans after the game asking what they liked about it is a primary source. An indiscriminate collection of quotes from players or coaches is a primary source.
    Newspaper articles, because of their institutional distance from the subject, the fact that they are edited by a neutral person (i.e. a person who is neither connected with the subject nor employed by the writer), and their capacity for neutral analysis, interpretation, etc., are at worst somewhere in between primary and secondary sources, and to my mind function as secondary sources. ``` t b w i l l i e ` $1.25 ` 19:02, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Toll Booth Willie, thanks for your comments here. Would be great to get you back in the editing mix! Dowlah-twenty-five! Jweiss11 (talk) 02:54, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further. There is nothing extraordinary about the fact that many season articles are stubs. Per WP:STUB: "As of 2024, almost half of Wikipedia's articles could be considered stubs." However, they are not perma-stubs. A review of the typical college football season shows how active the project is at the incremental process of improving articles. E.g., 1941 Duquesne Dukes football team (10 different editors steadily working to improve the article since its creation in 2017). Cbl62 (talk) 07:11, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • A reminder notability is not about the current state of an article, and that something has to be done is a logical fallacy. I also looked at articles where there's the claim that something "must" be done and they all look like perfectly fine stubs to me, with the exception of two which only use primary sources: 2023 Delaware Fightin' Blue Hens football team which I can clearly assume is notable (I know that league gets GNG-qualifying coverage) and 2015 Central Connecticut Blue Devils football team which I can't. This also isn't a properly formatted AfC, but there's also not much to do here? I might require a season article to have at least one GNG-qualifying source to survive an AfD, but that's about it. SportingFlyer T·C 08:20, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with this. If you believe that an article is underdeveloped or undercited, then please click the [Edit] button and WP:SOFIXIT. Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup and Wikipedia:There is no deadline.
    I do not think that anything approaching mass deletion is going to be accepted by the community. Attempts to do that in the recent past have produced acrimony instead of deletions. In some cases (e.g., smaller schools or short-lived programs), I think that "List of ____ College football seasons" should be merged to a broader article, "____ College football", but I suggest to the nom that this will be more likely to happen if (a) they use the Wikipedia:Merging process instead of AFD and (b) they offer to do the work and (c) they do it with the online equivalent of a cheerful smile – not a single word that could be construed as complaining that other editors aren't living up to your standards, that the articles aren't sourced to your standards, that sources don't exist, etc. You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar, and a merge proposed with an assertion that it will make it easier for readers to find this Extremely Valuable™ and Important™ information will probably be accepted faster than one where others suspect you despise them and disdain their subject area. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:23, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Wikipedia shouldn't be a mirror for sports stats data like that found in Sports-Reference or in primary source pages. If those are the only coverage that can be found for a season, then I think there should be a policy that allows those season articles to be deleted. However, I am not for just assuming that reliable independent sources do not exist all of the season articles that currently lack good sources. I am against a general WP:TNT of articles in this category and more for a long term incremental nomination of problematic articles at WP:AfD, which gives editors an opportunity to find reliable sources. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:17, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sports-Reference dot com is not a WP:Reliable third-party source. I would very much support a medium-term goal of deleting/replacing all references to it, along with other well-used WP:SELFPUBLISHEDSOURCES such as College Football Data Warehouse, College Poll Archive, etc. PK-WIKI (talk) 18:47, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Why isnt Sports Reference reliable? It seems to meet WP:USEDBYOTHERS. Though as a primary source database, it can't be used to establish WP notability. —Bagumba (talk) 18:57, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's self-published. Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources. PK-WIKI (talk) 19:07, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If we're calling Sports-Reference self-published, I'm not sure what's out there that wouldn't be considered self-published. They're clearly "subject matter experts". SportingFlyer T·C 20:36, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, certainly sources like the New York Times or Associated Press wouldn't be considered self-published. "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." It's not clear to me that the authors of Sports Reference have been published by reliable independent sources. Note: this is a different requirement than 3rd party sources using or linking to the SR material. PK-WIKI (talk) 21:22, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Multiple scholarly articles have cited pro-football-reference.com in their work. SportingFlyer T·C 23:08, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That quote only says that self-published sources can be reliable. It doesn't support NYT or AP not being "self-published". Anyways, I think that's misapplying the "self-published" label. The reason to use stats databases sparingly is that we should rely more on secondary sources per WP:PSTS: Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources, and to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Anyways, database sites are unrelated to the thread's main topic on notability. —Bagumba (talk) 03:28, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Wouldn’t the databases/encyclopedias maintained by Sports Reference be considered tertiary sources, not primary? As for reliability and “self-published”, the college football site they have is riddled with incompleteness and errors as you go back to the early 1900s and 1800s, but Baseball Reference is widely considered a definitive source. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:55, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe it's primary because it's the raw, uninterpreted stats. Anyways, the bigger point is that we generally don't want editors mining for tidbits that are not mentioned by secondary sources. —Bagumba (talk) 02:02, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    From tertiary source: A tertiary source is an index or textual consolidation of already published primary and secondary sources that does not provide additional interpretations or analysis of the sources....Indexes, bibliographies, concordances, and databases are aggregates of primary and secondary sources and therefore often considered tertiary sources. The Sports Reference sites look like classic tertiary sources to me. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:34, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a looser def than WP:TERTIARY. Anyways, subject for another thread. —Bagumba (talk) 02:42, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would support a change at WP:NSEASONS, as that guideline does not accurately reflect the duality/co-existence of College + Professional football in the current or historic media landscape. As stated above, the college game was far more notable than the professional leagues for large periods of the sport's history. Although lower in viewership than the NFL today, the top tier of CFB is still a highly covered league with games on its own dedicated day of the week enforced by antitrust laws. The bullet "A national championship season at the top collegiate level is generally notable" fits for fencing or water polo but is rather ridiculous for college football. Being 'professional' is not what determines notability. And the bullet "For programs considered elite in a sport..." needs to be expanded to contain, at least, fringe teams such as Penn State and extremely notable but non-"elite" teams such as Rutgers (as explained above). Should probably discuss current and past conference membership to determine assumed notability. PK-WIKI (talk) 19:41, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I also support a revision to WP:NSEASONS to minimize WP:INHERITED notability. That of course would need to be a separate discussion that takes place on the WP:NSPORTS talk page. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 20:10, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've always just thought it's whether a season can pass WP:GNG. Most college football seasons can! SportingFlyer T·C 20:37, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    NSEASONS could use some updating, but it's next to impossible to get consensus for any new/revised sports guidelines. Ultimately, WP:GNG is the actual standard anyway. Cbl62 (talk) 23:19, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Editors can fall back on GNG. New page patrollers and non-CFB experts lose out, needing to rely on WP:BEFORE, and being vilified if experts can dig up sources. Such is WP these days. —Bagumba (talk) 03:37, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Bagumba, that sounds like a good feature, not a bug. I know next to nothing about cricket. I know and respect my ignorance of this topic. That's one major reason why I haven't waded into articles about cricket, and proposed mass deletion/merging of season articles like Kent County Cricket Club in 2010 or Cambridge UCCE and Cambridge University in 2005 without first familiarizing myself with the topic, and then talking to editors at Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket to understand the conventions the practices that regular editors there have been working with for years. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:39, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Mass deletions are a different animal. For an individual page though, do you think SNGs are helpful to stave off a potential AfD? —Bagumba (talk) 04:59, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In regard to all of that, failure to pass WP:GNG is grounds for deletion (at least as a stand-alone article). Barely being able to pass GNG is not really grounds for keeping (as a stand-alone article); that is, something that is technically "notable" but about which virtually nothing can be written is best merged into a broader piece. Material that is encyclopedic but extremely short serve little to not purpose in a stand-alone page.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:52, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AfD for 2024 Michigan vs. Ohio State football game

Feedback on the AfD for 2024 Michigan vs. Ohio State football game would be greatly appreciated at the following link: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2024 Michigan vs. Ohio State football game. Thank you. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 17:30, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

General manager roles

It might be time to either expand the general manager page or create a new specifically tailored towards college football with recent notable GM hires such as Michael Lombardi at UNC, Andrew Luck at Stanford, and Ron Rivera at Cal. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 01:15, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like Hirolovesswords (talk · contribs) already made Category:College football general managers, which suffices for now. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:29, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Dissident93, I began a little subsection, but I am sure there is plenty more to be expanded upon. Thetreesarespeakingtome (talk) 00:07, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Heisman's list of 30 Greatest Southern Football Players c. 1915

Heisman compiled a list for the Atlanta Georgian and any help on expanding the articles is appreciated: 1) John Edgerton; 2) Billy Williams; 3) Henry D. Phillips; 4) Bob Blake; 5) Wright Blanche; 6) Buster Hunter; 7) Red Smith; 8) Owsley Manier; 9) M. S. Harvey; 10) Lob Brown; 11) Bradley Walker; 12) Jim Penton; 13) Lex Stone; 14) Honus Craig; 15) John Maxwell; 16) Auxford Burks; 17) Stein Stone; 18) Walker Leach; 19) Frank Jones; 20) J. R. Davis; 21) Aubrey Lanier; 22) Joe Pritchard; 23) Carl Sitton; 24) Eugene Caton; 25) Vin Campbell; 26) Jenks Gillem; 27) Ray Morrison; 28) John E. Davis; 29) Tom Brown; and 30) Bob McWhorter. Cake (talk) 23:07, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question about Lists of NFL draftees by team

Why do we have pick in the round in the tables? It isn't noteworthy is it?-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 00:41, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relative pick in a round is trivial. —Bagumba (talk) 00:33, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Debartolo2917:-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 18:44, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The yearly draft articles, like 1990 NFL draft, don't have pick number within round. Jweiss11 (talk) 19:26, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree @Jweiss11: also, aren't the formats of the collegiate draftee articles different now than they were when a few were promoted to WP:FL status?-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 19:35, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The FL notice on talk pages invites improvements:

If you can update or improve it, please do so

An issue might arise if that column was the product of a long-discussed consensus, or something counter to FL criteria, but is that the case? —Bagumba (talk) 02:24, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I won't strike my above comment because there is a notes section in some of the lists and not others. Also, there are many draft years that are not linked. In the spirit of standardization, I am also linking those when removing the pick in round columns. That all being said, the spirit of my above comment was off base. I was remembering how Debartalo's edits were to change the format. In reality, he cleaned up the formatting where we wouldn't have the same year repeated. Those were good edits IMO.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 22:39, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Multi-season vs. individual season articles

For most of the last 10 years or so, this project has had a consensus favoring individual season articles for major college football teams. I continue to support that consensus. However, as we have continued to expand our coverage into lower tiers of football, I've been persuaded that decade articles (or other multiyear combinations as may be logical) are a better approach in many cases. I'm still not sure exactly where the line should be drawn, but I currently believe the multi-season approach should be considered in at least two areas: (1) early years of college football, and (2) lower-tier programs. These are both factors that are associated with less depth of coverage. Where both factors are present (olden times plus lower level), the decision to adopt a multi-season approach is easiest. Of course, there might be exceptions (e.g., national championship seasons or other extraordinary circumstances) where there is good reason to create/preserve an individual season article.

The biggest virtue of the multi-season approach IMO is that it allows us to continue building our coverage of college football history while reducing concerns/disagreements as to whether individual season articles comply with WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV, and WP:NSEASONS. I also see some benefit in that it allows for an opening lead section summarizing the highlights and providing context for the program's performance over a somewhat longer time period.

The biggest drawbacks of the multi-season approach include (1) a possible impediment to article creation (it's a lot more time consuming to create a decade article than a single-season article), and (2) it might be a deterrent to building out further details (e.g., roster, game summaries, etc.) on an individual season. I also wonder whether a reader might find it more difficult to navigate to the specific season/information they are seeking. I also would not want to see the multi-season approach be treated as a waiver of the need to add SIGCOV -- a multi-season article should still IMO have SIGCOV. Whichever approach we follow, the days of creating articles sourced only to databases should be behind us.

Recently, User:Jweiss11 and I have been working together to build out our coverage of the early years of the Michigan Intercollegiate Athletic Association (the oldest college football conference, but a lower-level one) using the multi-season approach. As part of this effort, we have redirected pre-existing season articles to the new multi-season articles. Examples of the newly-created multi-season articles include:

Runs of seasons where a team has played very few games are also ripe for the multi-season approach. E.g,, NYU Violets football, 1873–1889 (17 games played in 17 years).

Comments and suggestions are welcome on (1) whether this approach is desirable at all, (2) ideas as to how to improve such multi-season articles, and (3) most significantly, where and when we should draw the line between a multi-season vs. single-season approach. Help editing the articles is also welcome. @Jweiss11: @Patriarca12: @PK-WIKI: @MisterCake: @Toll Booth Willie: @Carrite: @Thetreesarespeakingtome: Cbl62 (talk) 21:06, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. While time consuming, these types of articles are very important as many lower-level schools won't have enough individual seasons worth note for standalone articles, but grouped together add great context to the team. I am a firm believer in this approach as I have done a little work on the topic myself (Buena Vista football, 1898–1909; shameless plug but whatever).
2. I think that each year could be fleshed out as much as possible and still be accessible (especially on mobile when the years themselves can be collapsed).
3. It would certainly just depend on how important a season is, IMO conference champions, playoff teams, and undefeated teams warrant an individual season article regardless. Thetreesarespeakingtome (talk) 21:16, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are game recaps considered a primary or secondary source? I believe I've seen that debate somewhere on WP, not necessarily directly sports related. Someone could make an argument that a topic based on stats DBs, school media guides, and next-day articles does not demonstrate GNG's requirement for independent, secondary sources. —Bagumba (talk) 23:41, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This question was discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1987–88 Kilmarnock F.C. season where the result was "Keep". To rebut such a contention, we should ideally not rely solely on brief recaps that do nothing more than record plays run, scores, etc. It is best to have coverage that includes some analysis, commentary, or opinions. Post-season recaps are often good sources. And for many teams post- and pre-game coverage is extensive and includes such analysis/commentary. Cbl62 (talk) 00:06, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the sources that wrap up the entire season or at least analyze a few weeks are preferable to WP:OR cherry-picking stats and plays from boxscores and game recaps. —Bagumba (talk) 03:31, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bagumba:Are game recaps considered a primary or secondary source? The WP:PRIMARY part of WP:OR policy says

For Wikipedia's purposes, breaking news stories are also considered to be primary sources.

Left guide (talk) 03:25, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if game recaps are necessarily "breaking news", but I could understand the argument. —Bagumba (talk) 03:33, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note that we have an administrative category for these multi-season team articles: Category:College football multi-season team articles. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:43, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Darian Durant

Darian Durant has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 02:00, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is junior college really "college football"?

Withdrawn.—Bagumba (talk) 14:00, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion 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.

In many bios, like Montez Sweat, their junior college career is referred to as "college football" in prose and the infobox. I find this misleading—they are different levels of play compared to four-year universities, and seem rarely lumped together in reliable sources. I'd propose removing this from infoboxes and leads, as one's juco play (like HS) is generally not what makes one notable. —Bagumba (talk) 10:49, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. Attending junior college affects your eligibility. And it IS a post-secondary. And if high school is listed in infoboxes (it is!), so too should JC. Likewise, if a student played the transfer portal, all his colleges should be listed, even if some are more "notable" than others. pbp 12:32, 4 April 2025 (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.
  • Comment: for me, this is similar to Minor League Baseball, which plays a key role in professional baseball; regardless, it has long been agreed-upon practice only to list a player's Major League Baseball teams (or similar foreign levels of foreign play, such as NPB) in infoboxes. Dmoore5556 (talk) 17:49, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alumni status and the transfer portal

I was recently tasked as part of my disclosed paid editor duties with Arizona State University to overhaul the alumni list. I found it to contain many, many omissions—somewhere on the order of 300 notable football players alone were missing (and that is the largest athletics-side piece left of the overhaul at User:Melted Brie/Alumni).

However, I'm running into an issue for which I cannot find any guidance in any college sports project. It is increasingly common now, thanks to the transfer portal and changed eligibility requirements, for college athletes to split their eligibility among two or more schools. In perusing publications from ASU's own athletic department, e.g. a list of Sun Devils competing in the NFL, players that had played at ASU but transferred to and finished their careers at other institutions (e.g. Jayden Daniels, Ricky Pearsall) were not listed, though players in the opposite situation (started at another school and transferred to ASU) were. I would expect people who played at ASU—even if they later finished their career elsewhere—to be listed, even if official sports information documents don't claim them as alumni. This is something I expect to see in more sports, given that the list expansion has turned up other notable transfers out of ASU like Hubert Kós and Joson Sanon.

Is there any guidance or point of view that can assist with this, or a standard of when players should and shouldn't be classified for list purposes? Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 03:28, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sammi, you're referring to List of Arizona State University alumni, correct? Those sorts of lists are outside of the scope of this project and that of other college sports projects as well. They should probably fall under the purview of Wikipedia:WikiProject Higher education. Nonetheless, I think that ASU alumni list should include athletes (and others) who attended ASU before transferring to another college. You'll note that in the case of Jayden Daniels, Arizona State is listed in the college field of the infobox, and the article includes Category:Arizona State Sun Devils football players, which is a grandchild of Category:University of Arizona alumni. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:50, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jweiss11, yes. I appreciate the comment. (Also, did you do that ASU/UA mixup deliberately? I have found some startlingly bad mixed-up links in this process as well as newspaper articles that say ASU grads went to "Phoenix State University" and "University of Arizona, Tempe". Nuh-uhhhh.) Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 07:12, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, that was an accident! I meant to say that Category:Arizona State Sun Devils football players is a grandchild of Category:Arizona State University alumni. Things do sometimes get a little confusing when researching the 1800s and early 1900s. The early names for a lot of state colleges get messy, e.g. the University of Missouri was called "Missouri State University", which is not Missouri State University. Jweiss11 (talk) 16:46, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My dictionary shows alumni as "a graduate or former student of a particular school, college, or university". So it seems it's subject to the list's selection criteria.—Bagumba (talk) 07:59, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Jim Moran

Jim Moran has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 14:54, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Background coloring in head coaching record tables

Dissident93 made some edits to Template:CFB Yearly Record Subhead and Template:CFB Yearly Record End yesterday that removed gray background coloring for heading and total rows in the college football head coaching record tables. This has something do with rendering in light-on-dark color scheme ("dark mode") it seems. The gray background color is still present in the analogous templates for college basketball head coaching record tables. Doggie Julian#Head coaching record is a good example where you can compare the two. I certainly think the tables look better with the gray shading. Dissident93, can you explain what the problem was with the "dark mode"? Is there a way we could keep the gray shading by default, but change things as needed for dark mode? I know you also have some more general concerns about the layout of these tables. Jweiss11 (talk) 19:54, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I was going crazy, my eyes are not fond of these all-white record tables. Thetreesarespeakingtome (talk) 20:14, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It looks better with the gray. It's a little easier to distinguish between tenures when the whole table isn't white. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 17:28, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Team honors awarded to redshirt freshmen discussion

There is a discussion occurring at the CBB wikiproject that raises the same question for CFB.

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College basketball#Are redshirts who didn't play considered national champions?

PK-WIKI (talk) 02:32, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From searching "redshirt champion" in the archives, it looks like related issues have been discussed in this college football project twice before:
Left guide (talk) 06:01, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As it relates to college football, T.J. Downing redshirted (zero games played) on the 2002 Ohio State Buckeyes football team that won the 2003 Fiesta Bowl national championship game. He then recorded appearances in 2003 and 2004 before becoming a starter in 2005.
In 2006 The Marion Star, a reliable third-party secondary source, stated that Downing "could trump that by winning a national championship ring to match the one he received as a redshirt freshman in 2002."
Circa 2011, Ohio State came under investigation for Tattoogate. One of the pieces of evidence cited in the court records of the case was "T.J. Downing's National Championship ring" that had been traded for NCAA-violating tattoos.
This same ring was later sold on eBay, clearly marked "DOWNING" and engraved with the score of the 2003 Fiesta Bowl.
T.J. Downing was a redshirt for this season and did not record any playtime but did receive a national championship ring. PK-WIKI (talk) 19:53, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bowl games parameter in player infobox template

The "bowl games" parameter at {{Infobox college football player}} (example usage Kyren Lacy) seems like clutter that fails to impart relatively meaningful information unique to that individual player; it's far more of a team accomplishment than a player accomplishment. To me, it would be like if NFL players had a "playoff finishes" parameter showing the result of their final playoff game each year they appeared. I'm inclined to remove it, but would be curious as to what others think first. I checked the talk and archives of both this project and the template, and couldn't find prior discussions about this. Left guide (talk) 06:50, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. I agree with you, but bowl games have been in player infoboxes for many years. Accordingly, we will need a good consensus here to implement such a change. Cbl62 (talk) 18:14, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, merely being on a team that plays in a bowl game isn't infbox worthy, but something like a Rose Bowl MVP can remain in the highlights. Cbl62 (talk) 19:39, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that was implied, but thanks for clarifying. :) Left guide (talk) 20:10, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Are 'Sports-Reference.com' websites reliable sources for redshirt seasons and awards?

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Are 'Sports-Reference.com' websites reliable sources for redshirt seasons and awards?. PK-WIKI (talk) 17:54, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1899 Sewanee

1899 Sewanee was demoted from GA to C. A part of me understands, but another part finds it hard to add anything more. What can be done to improve the article? The team deserves a proper article. Also, what is Fuzzy trying to say about Suter? I think that's the only thing hurting the article. If that were clarified, I'd be more bitter about the demotion. Any help appreciated. One thing to add might be the film Unrivaled suggests the reason for Sewanee's road trip was the disputed baseball title with Texas. Cake (talk) 04:28, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MisterCake: I assume this post refers to the article 1899 Sewanee Tigers football team. Have the concerns raised at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/1899 Sewanee Tigers football team/1 been addressed yet? If not, that would probably be a good first step. Aside from that, expanding the article with reliable sources wouldn't hurt. If that's something you're interested in taking on, some of the best sources I found in a cursory Google search are this New York Times piece, a PBS documentary, and a University of Alabama Press book. I hope this reply is helpful. Left guide (talk) 07:55, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article includes some unsourced assertions that appear dubious. For example, it says without sourcing that Sewanee played "on rocks for a gridiron on their home field." While they may have played on a dirt field with some rocks tossed in here and there, it seems highly unlikely that they played "on rocks for a gridiron." I will review in greater detail and leave comments on the article's talk page. Cbl62 (talk) 15:30, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Prefix: a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Portal di Ensiklopedia Dunia

Portal : Agama
Agama
Portal : Bahasa
Bahasa
Portal : Biografi
Biografi
Portal : Budaya
Budaya
Portal : Ekonomi
Ekonomi
Portal : Elektronika
Elektronika
Portal : Film
Film
Portal : Filsafat
Filsafat
Portal : Geografi
Geografi
Portal : Indonesia
Indonesia
Portal : Ilmu
Ilmu
Portal : Lingkungan
Lingkungan
Portal : Masyarakat
Masyarakat
Portal : Matematika
Matematika
Portal : Militer
Militer
Portal : Mitologi
Mitologi
Portal : Musik
Musik
Portal : Olahraga
Olahraga
Portal : Pendidikan
Pendidikan
Portal : Politik
Politik
Portal : Sastra
Sastra
Portal : Sejarah
Sejarah
Portal : Seni
Seni
Portal : Teknologi
Teknologi
Kembali kehalaman sebelumnya