Talk:2005 Texas Longhorns football team/Archive 1

Start

I've got a ton more stuff to add, but this will get us started. Johntex\^talk 13:16, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

John, you've done a fantastic job. Thanks so much for all your work here and elswhere. jareha 06:57, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Article title

Could this article be named simply: 2005 Texas Longhorns football? jareha 06:57, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I am happy either way. Or maybe the title should be Greatest Team Ever.  :-) Should we have a straw poll? Johntex\^talk 18:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Greatest Team Ever sounds right, doesn't it? A straw poll sounds good here — 2005 Texas Longhorns football gets my vote. As a note to future voters, only proper nouns should be capitalized in the title (according to article naming conventions). jareha 20:54, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jareha - I think policy in this case should trump straw polls, so your proposed name is probably better anyway. I'm not sure about the form of whether it should be "Longhorn" (singular) or "Longhorns" (plural). What do you think about that? Johntex\^talk 20:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure on that point either. Mack Brown said "2005 Texas Longhorn football" — for what it's worth — at the celebration yesterday. :)

To further confuse the matter, there are 24 search results for "Texas Longhorn football" and 91 for "Texas Longhorns football" at mackbrown-texasfootball.com. jareha 21:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

To confuse the issue further, Google gives 76,600 hits for "Texas Longhorns football" and 48,700 hits for "Texas longhorn football". It seems to me that Texas Longhorns football might be used slightly more often, even though the version without the "s" sounds a little better to me, personally. Johntex\^talk 04:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Usually when it comes to matters with the University, I have an opinion on everything — surprisingly, not here. That said, I guess we should go with the more frequent term. jareha 04:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm gonna go with 2005 Texas Longhorn football, although it still is arguably clunky. Greatest college football team ever should redirect here though ;-) — Scm83x ^talk 08:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Johntex, would you say we've satisfied consensus with regards to naming the article 2005 Texas Longhorn football? I believe we have. If you agree, go ahead and make the move. jareha 05:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I'd recommend leaving "team" in the title; the article is, after all, specifically about the 2005 team rather than the program in general. As I noted on my own talk page, one question which hasn't been discussed much here is whether it should be Longhorn football or Longhorns football. MisfitToys 19:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, missed the bit about Longhorn versus Longhorns on your talk page. The official football site — mackbrown-texasfootball.com — uses both Texas Longhorn football and Texas Longhorns football, as mentioned above. So there's definitely a bit of confusion as to which we should go with — hence the delay. jareha 23:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Footnotes out of order

The trouble with Wikipedia's prefered footnote style is that, while they are very informative when done correctly, it is very easy for them to get out of sequence, as they currently are in this article. Apologies to readers of the article while we get this fixed.... I think all the references are there, just in the wrong order. So, if you don't find the right reference, please look a bit at the other references. Thanks, Johntex\^talk 18:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

They have been converted to <ref></ref> style and they seem to all be OK now. Johntex\^talk 18:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

senate resolution

SOmeone should move the full text of the senate resolution over to wikisource, and just leave the conclusions in the article, I think. Night Gyr 21:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

• Done Johntex\^talk 06:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Bolding Teams in Scoreboxes in Game Notes Section

I'm confused about the bolding of the top team listed in the game score boxes under the 2005_Texas_Longhorn_football_team#Game_notes section. Why is the top team always bolded? Are they the home team? Typically you would bold the winning team, but that's not the case either. Perhaps someone could clarify this with a note or come up with some system that's obvious? Mecu 02:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. Bold indicates the winning team. The visiting team is on top, with the home team on the bottom. Thanks for pointing out the error. Johntex\^talk 03:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair use images?

Does the use of the school logos in the game notes section violate the fair use restrictions for logos?--NMajdan•talk 18:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so. They are used alongside of discussion pertaining to those schools. The fact that the narrative happens on this page, rather than one titled University of Colorado or Colorado Buffaloes football (etc.) should not be relevant. On the other hand, it would probably be wrong to use the UC logo on the Buffalo article. (Unless that article had a section about use of the animal in logos, in which case it would probably be permissable again). Johntex\^talk 18:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I also checked on the magazine covers. Those magazine issues are specifically discussed in the text of the article, so I think we are fine with them as well. Johntex\^talk 01:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, just checking. I may do the same thing on the 2006 Oklahoma Sooners football team page and I just wanted to make sure before I went forward with that. Thanks.--NMajdan•talk 19:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• I just want to say that I think the logos add to the artical and should stay.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rick lay95 (talk • contribs) 00:18, 2006 July 31 (UTC)
  • I personally think some can be removed. I would suggest to use the Colorado logo once, remove the championship logos. I will look through the whole article later, but I personally find the images a bit excessive here. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 16:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

We've had the sports teams logos debate several times before. Using an icon at the mention of a team is not permissable. The perfectly adequate free alternative to "logo : name" is "name". ed g2s • talk 16:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The logos are not being used simply at the mention of a school. They are being used in conjunction with discussion of a specific game played by that school against another school. Johntex\^talk 17:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

We allow a sports team logo to be used in an article about that team. If we have an article about a particular game played by that team, we would still allow the logo. In this case, what we have here is thirteen miniature articles about thirteen different games. If they were split out into seperate articles, there would be no issue with the use of the logos. The fact that they are merged together into one article covering a single season should make no difference. The logos still represent the teams being discussed, and the article features discussion on each game. Johntex\^talk 17:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I would also suggest of removing the Bevo photo from this article. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

On what basis? The image is specifically discussed in the article. It is a single screenshot from a multi-hour program. It is clearly usable under fair use. Johntex\^talk 18:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok...i'll remove the website banner. There are several images that display the victory of this team that year. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi ZScout, thank you for discussing this here. I reverted your removal before I noticed you had posted here. I think the web banner should stay because it is specifically discussed in the article. Johntex\^talk 18:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

While, of course, it is discussed in the article, but I personally think that you have magazine covers with the victory, meeting with Bush about the victory; I think that those are good idea in the fair use department (though the Bush photo is PD). Also, it looks a lot cleaner on my screen with the banner image removed, since it is pushing the Bevo photo down towards the scrren, making the "edit" button appear in a strange location. That was one of the reasons why I removed the bowl logos earlier is that the Rose Bowl logo was overlapping a bunch of the text (I am using a 1024x768 screen, Firefox browser). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughts. I think the website logo adds something different because it is a response specifically from the university. Also, it probably will not be kept on their website forever, meaning there may be long term value to Wikipedia being the only site to feature it alongside analysis of its design. I agree with you about formatting concerns. We should do whatever we can to make sure the article is readable on a variety of browsers and screen resolutions. I have moved this logo way down the page to sit alongside the text discussing the logo. Would you please take a look and see what you think? Johntex\^talk 18:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks good. I have no more issues with the article and thanks for hearing me out. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC) Woo, Pig! Sooie!

GA failed

Reasons given are :

1. Fair use rationale of Image:D campballs cover 011106 30.jpg not given for its use on the article's page.
2. Doesn't comply with 1c and 3b of the WP:WIAGA.
3. This sentence Therefore, expectations were high coming into the 2005 season. isn't necessary.
4. The Prior to the game, a special appeal was made for donations to help those suffering in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina isn't really significant for the article.
5. The matchup between Texas and Ohio State was considered to be the best football game of the early season by whom?
6. The Notable statistics and accomplishments' section should be turned into prose.
7. Quotes section should be moved to Wikiquote.
8. The article misses pre-season games?, training info, roaster.
9. Information about injuries or problems during the season aren't present. Lincher 18:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• Hello Lincher, thank you very much for taking time to review the article. I hope you don't mind, but I am turning your bullets into a numbered list so that interested editors may more easily discuss and address your concerns. Johntex\^talk 18:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

With respect to the above comments:

1. A fair use rationale is now provided for all non-free images.
2. I believe it now complies
3. I removed that sentence
4. I think this sentence is relevant. It grounds the season in terms of other events that were happening and which affected members of the teams, their families, and the fans.
5. References provided
6. I seperated out the information into two sections. One part of which I made itno prose. The other part I turned into an in-line list, which is allowed by the WP:MOS.
7. The Quotes section has been moved
8. Information on the pre-season scrimmage, training, and the final official roster has now been added.
9. Informtion on injuries has been added. The Horns had a comparatively injury-free season in 2005.

Above by Johntex\^talk 05:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Semi-automatic peer review script

I ran the semi-automatic javascript program "peer review program", and it made the following suggestions for improving this article:

• Per WP:MOS, avoid using words/phrases that indicate time periods relative to the current day. For example, previous [day/week/month/year] might be terms that should be replaced with specific dates/times.
• Please alphabetize the categories.
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 000 yards, use 000 yards, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 000&nbsp;yards.
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.
• As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), dates shouldn't use ^th; for example, instead of using January 30^th was a great day, use January 30 was a great day.
• This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, than an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.
• As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space inbetween. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2]
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.

The script author suggests we may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Johntex\^talk 18:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Proper use of possessive

For those of you who think the possessive form of Texas is Texas', you are wrong. Please see this. Please do not rewrite the rules of punctuation for this page. Nova SS 15:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for the link, but an internal link to Wikipedia is a self reference and can't be considered definitive. This issue has been discussed before and it appears to me there is no definitive answer to this question. Johntex\^talk 22:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Stats?

Has there been any consideration for adding statistics to the article?--NMajdan•talk 22:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I have considered it, but that is as far as I have gotten.  :-)

When this article was created, it was the first non-stub article on an individual team season and the WikiProject on college football did not yet exist. There were no college-football-specific guidelines or standards to follow.

I like the tables and I think they would be a good addition. Most of the needed content can probably be found here. A roster might be nice, too, but I don't know if a complete roster will still be available. I will move the Senate Resolution to WikiSource to make some space for statistics and tables. Johntex\^talk 23:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

US Senate Resolution 352

I moved the text of the Senate Resolution to Wikisource in order to save space in this article. The article still mentions the resoltuion. Johntex\^talk 15:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Peer review

The article has an ongoing peer review here. Please stop by and join the discussion. Thanks! Johntex\^talk 15:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Jamaal Charles

In the game notes, the text describes Jamaal as making his first start both in the LALaf. game and the Rice game. I seem to remember his first start being the Lafayette game, but I'm not sure about that, can someone verify? —bbatsell ¿? 21:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I am almost positive he played against LAFaf. I will double check and then correct it. Thanks for helping shape up the aritcle! Johntex\^talk 23:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see now. On closer review the article is correct the way it is. Charles did play against LALaf, but Selvin Young was the Starter. Rice was the first start for Charles. Do you think we should make any wording change to make this more clear? Johntex\^talk 03:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've changed some of the wording in the Lafayette section. It previously said that he started; I couldn't figure out the best way to word it, so that's subject to plenty of change. —bbatsell ¿? 03:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)