Talk:2005 Texas Longhorns football team

2005 Texas Longhorns football team is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 2, 2010.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
August 7, 2006	Good article nominee	Not listed
October 9, 2006	Articles for deletion	Kept
April 28, 2007	Good article nominee	Listed
May 2, 2007	WikiProject peer review	Reviewed
September 9, 2007	Featured article candidate	Promoted
Current status: Featured article

United States: Texas / University of Texas at Austin Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Texas portal This article is supported by WikiProject Texas (assessed as Low-importance).
	Texas portal This article is supported by WikiProject Texas - University of Texas at Austin (assessed as High-importance).

College football Top‑importance

	College football portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject College football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of college football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.College footballWikipedia:WikiProject College footballTemplate:WikiProject College footballcollege football articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1

Archive 2

Featured Article nomination

This article has been nominated for Featured Article status. Please leave any comments about how the article could be improved at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2005 Texas Longhorn football team or on this talk page. Thanks! Johntex\^talk 06:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the article has been promoted the "Featured article candidates" link should no longer be used for new comments. Please leave comments/suggestions here. Thanks! Johntex\^talk 17:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roster - David Pino

I wasn't sure where to put this. I know you mentioned him in the game recaps but you don't list David Pino as a kicker under the roster. He received a scholarship for his senior season (after being a walk-on for 4 years), lettered 3 years ('01, '03, '05), was the main PK after the first game (contributing in many ways including 3 crucial field goals in the Ohio state game and 2 field goals in the national championship (one his career long of 46 yards)) and holds several records in the history books (most extra points attempted and made (season and game) and most points scored by place-kicker (season)). There is probably more that could be mentioned. I understand this was a lot to put together, and you did a great job, just thought you might want to include him on the roster. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.109.145.249 (talk) 16:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the correct place! Thank you for calling out this fact. I don't know how I managed to leave David Pino off the roster. He was clearly on the team, as shown by the source we used for the roster. I will correct this right now. He might even be worthy of his own article given the records you mention. Those are school records, I assume?

You sound very knowledgeable about UT football. We'd love it if you'd sign up for an account and help us build a comprehensive set of articles about UT and about college football. We are especially on the lookout for free use photos of games, players, coaches, etc, if you have any.

Thanks again for your comment. Please let us know if you spot any other problems. Johntex\^talk 17:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for File:Texas Longhorns football - 2005 National Champions.png

Removed image deletion warning since the matter has been addressed. Johntex\^talk 03:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for File:BCS national championship trophy and Bevo.JPG

Removed image deletion warning since the matter has been addressed. Johntex\^talk 05:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to remove date-autoformatting

Dear fellow contributors

MOSNUM no longer encourages date autoformatting, having evolved over the past year or so from the mandatory to the optional after much discussion there and elsewhere of the disadvantages of the system. Related to this, MOSNUM prescribes rules for the raw formatting, irrespective of whether a date is autoformatted or not). MOSLINK and CONTEXT are consistent with this.

There are at least six disadvantages in using date-autoformatting, which I've capped here:

Disadvantages of date-autoformatting

(1) In-house only

(a) It works only for the WP "elite".
(b) To our readers out there, it displays all-too-common inconsistencies in raw formatting in bright-blue underlined text, yet conceals them from WPians who are logged in and have chosen preferences.
(c) It causes visitors to query why dates are bright-blue and underlined.

(2) Avoids what are merely trivial differences

(a) It is trivial whether the order is day–month or month–day. It is more trivial than color/colour and realise/realize, yet our consistency-within-article policy on spelling (WP:ENGVAR) has worked very well. English-speakers readily recognise both date formats; all dates after our signatures are international, and no one objects.

(3) Colour-clutter: the bright-blue underlining of all dates

(a) It dilutes the impact of high-value links.
(b) It makes the text slightly harder to read.
(c) It doesn't improve the appearance of the page.

(4) Typos and misunderstood coding

(a) There's a disappointing error-rate in keying in the auto-function; not bracketing the year, and enclosing the whole date in one set of brackets, are examples.
(b) Once autoformatting is removed, mixtures of US and international formats are revealed in display mode, where they are much easier for WPians to pick up than in edit mode; so is the use of the wrong format in country-related articles.
(c) Many WPians don't understand date-autoformatting—in particular, how if differs from ordinary linking; often it's applied simply because it's part of the furniture.

(5) Edit-mode clutter

(a) It's more work to enter an autoformatted date, and it doesn't make the edit-mode text any easier to read for subsequent editors.

(6) Limited application

(a) It's incompatible with date ranges ("January 3–9, 1998", or "3–9 January 1998", and "February–April 2006") and slashed dates ("the night of May 21/22", or "... 21/22 May").
(b) By policy, we avoid date autoformatting in such places as quotations; the removal of autoformatting avoids this inconsistency.

Removal has generally been met with positive responses by editors. Does anyone object if I remove it from the main text in a few days’ time on a trial basis? The original input formatting would be seen by all WPians, not just the huge number of visitors; it would be plain, unobtrusive text, which would give greater prominence to the high-value links. Tony (talk) 13:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]