stringtranslate.com

Talk:2023–24 College Football Playoff

Merger discussion

NOT MERGED
This discussion has not been edited in over a month and I see no consensus to merge. Launchballer 09:53, 28 March 2024 (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.

Yes, this may be presumed notable enough to deserve its own article. But it also needs to pass the other criteria of WP:GNG: the "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". If this article is just going to merely copy what is on 2023–24 NCAA football bowl games § College Football Playoff bowl games (and it currently does not include everything from there, including the content regarding the CFP committee's controversial decision to pick Alabama instead of Florida State), it should be merged back and resemble the previous bowl season articles without such a fork article, and leave this as a {{R to section}} and {{R printworthy}} redirect. Zzyzx11 (talk) 12:37, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge — no reason for this to be a stand-alone article. Each of the other articles like this — there are currently two; see the "Playoff" column in College Football Playoff National Championship#Game results — should also be merged out. Nor is "the playoffs are expanded to 12 teams next season" a reason to keep this. Dmoore5556 (talk)
Keep — I agree that the article needs to be expanded, but (as I posted to the Wikiproject) the annual College Football Playoff tournament is simply a different article subject from the wider and somewhat overlapping bowl games article. Just as the bowl games article is a different article from the season article, which also has overlapping sections for the bowl games and the CFP.
Ten years later, when I'm looking for the information on 2014–15 College Football Playoff, that's what I'm typing into the search engine and specifically what I want to read about. 2014–15 NCAA football bowl games has way too much other information. Wikipedia's article about the year's CFP shouldn't also list the participants in the 2014 Famous Idaho Potato Bowl.
"Michigan and Washington will face off in the College Football Playoff national championship game Monday night, but in an era in which there are more than 40 bowl games a season, with only two of them — the Rose Bowl and the Sugar Bowl, serving as national championship semifinals — carrying any sort of significance, the Pop-Tarts Bowl won the internet." — The New York Times
This is going to be even more obvious next year during the 12-team playoff, which includes unnamed mid-December on-campus playoff games. Are those even "bowl games"?
The CFP evolved out of the bowl games and BCS, so in the 2014 era it was a reasonable decision to merge the articles and just continue our bowl game articles. But in the years since, the CFP has become the singular focus of post-season media interest, at the expense of the wider bowl games, and is deserving of a dedicated article. Each of the annual CFP tournaments absolutely has significant coverage outside of their existence as "bowl games" so I'm not sure how that argument plays into this.
PK-WIKI (talk) 19:30, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully disagree. Looking for the 2014–15 playoff result... scroll down half a screen in 2014–15 NCAA football bowl games and the playoff bracket is prominently displayed. Concern about how to handle next season's expanded playoff (WP:CRYSTAL) can be addressed when we get there. Dmoore5556 (talk) 04:34, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To offer constructive criticism: a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS (or currently a lack thereof) over there at WT:CFB does not outweigh the broader issues. As of now, we have an article here that has a very substantial overlap and merely copies the content of another article. Furthermore, as I basically stated above, when readers currently go to this article, they are provided with less information on the 2023–24 CFP than what is currently on the main 2023–24 bowl games article. This currently results in wasting readers' time, internet bandwidth, and so forth by not providing additional content. We also currently seem to have only one editor interested in working on such additional pages, but has only essentially "saved their place" in the article namespace, instead of possibly planning about what additional content to include, or possibly working out some draft beforehand -- maybe something reasonable like 1970 Major League Baseball postseason basically being a summary style of three other articles. And it should not be Wikipedia editors' job to create poor article stubs solely for the purposes of search engine optimization. Search engines should be the ones to adapt to our redirects tagged with {{R with possibilities}}, {{R to section}}, {{R printworthy}}, and so forth. Instead, it's the cart before the horse, like those WP:TOOSOON-created articles. Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:06, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've already added an table listing the members of the 2023–24 College Football Playoff Selection Committee to this article, something that does not exist at 2023–24 NCAA football bowl games. That's just one example of something that can/should exist for the annual CFP article, but is likely out of scope for the wider bowl games article. The giant table at College_Football_Playoff#Past_members is the result of not having an annual article to put those names in for the last 10 years.
Same for details of the Florida State snub, something that other users have already deleted from the 2024 College Football Playoff National Championship article. Doesn't exactly fit at the bowl games article either, and currently has a a very small section. There was enough notable coverage of the FSU snub and choice of Alabama to warrant a section and major discussion, and the natural home for that is in the article about the playoff tournament from which they were excluded.
There is no WP:DEADLINE here. I've been adding content and encourage other editors to as well. I hope that by creating such an article, that next year we can keep most of the playoff content in the 2024–25 College Football Playoff article and just summarized / linked to / listed in the 2024–25 NCAA football bowl games article. I agree that 1970 Major League Baseball postseason is a good model article.
PK-WIKI (talk) 07:02, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's been quite a bit of content added to 2023–24 College Football Playoff, which I looked through just now. PCN02WPS has put forth a significant amount of editing effort, including extensive citations. That said, the nature of this article is (still) a re-presenting of existing content primarily from (or content that should be located in) 2023–24 NCAA football bowl games and the individual game articles (2024 Rose Bowl, 2024 Sugar Bowl, and 2024 College Football Playoff National Championship). There may be some value in "centralizing" such content, but not when it creates confusion (e.g. why I am getting a lengthy prose recounting of the Rose Bowl here rather than in 2024 Rose Bowl?) I have a very strong dislike for repeated / overlapped content, as it makes editing more difficult and makes it difficult for readers to know they're in the "right" place. The additional length of this article doesn't make it better, in my view. Bottom line for me is that this type of article will make sense for the upcoming expanded playoffs, but not for the four-team playoffs that have already happened and are covered in existing articles. Dmoore5556 (talk) 04:13, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dmoore5556 Is there a change (whether to content, formatting, etc) that would make this article warranted in your eyes? I agree that it will work well for the 12-team playoffs but in my mind this article works similarly to 2023 NCAA Division I men's basketball tournament, 2023–24 NFL playoffs, etc., though admittedly with fewer games and individual articles for each game. An especially apt comparison in my mind is 1970 Major League Baseball postseason above, which summarizes the ALCS, NLCS, and World Series (all with their own articles) and gives some background as to how the teams got in. I think a summary article like that is helpful for the playoff specifically, and I feel that if we maintain the playoff-specific articles for the 12-team format, then they will just pop back up for the 4-team format as I don't love a system where we would only have separate articles for playoffs starting eleven years in just due to an increase in the number of teams. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:10, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 13:21, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(
  • Comment or view
  • Article history
)

5x expanded by PCN02WPS (talk). Self-nominated at 23:41, 12 February 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/2023–24 College Football Playoff; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

Overall: Everything looks good, but there is a merge discussion still active. It would probably be best to wait until that is closed before this is approved. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:44, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as no consensus. Full review needed.--Launchballer 09:54, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

Passed.  750h+ | Talk  14:41, 8 April 2024 (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.

This review is transcluded from Talk:2023–24 College Football Playoff/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: PCN02WPS (talk · contribs) 07:27, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: 750h+ (talk · contribs) 04:05, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello PCN02WPS, I'll review this for GA status.  750h+ | Talk  04:05, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sections

Lead

Bracket

Selection and teams

Playoff games

Semifinals
Sugar Bowl
Championship

Aftermath

Source review

Images

Could we supply any images to the article? Even if they are the closest bit related that would illustrate the article well.  750h+ | Talk  04:47, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Verdict

Overall this is a fine article, but the extremely minor concerns need to be addressed above. After that, I'd be happy to pass the artie for WP:GA.

OK. So pictures are not a requirement for GAs, so I will pass this article even before you add them. Congrats!  750h+ | Talk  14:40, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.