Talk:National Signing Day

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

Rating

[edit]

Rated mid since it has general applicability, occurs cyclic and likely to be linked from other articles. --MECU≈talk 16:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like a sociology major copied and pasted an essay into this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.101.148.110 (talk) 20:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks more like a poorly written middle school assignment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.61.127.251 (talk) 15:56, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is the worst article on all of Wikipedia. It should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.81.211.43 (talk) 05:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NSD is definitely important enough to warrant an article, but this needs a great deal of work. I couldn't get past the opening paragraph, it's absurdly overblown and factually incorrect (it is only the first day to sign a National Letter of Intent in Football and Men's and Women's Soccer)Almanley (talk) 16:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this article deserves more attention as this is a HUGE day in college sports. In relation to the money generated by college sports, I believe that this day is largely influential. (SmoothGenau (talk) 02:16, 10 February 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Assessment comment

[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:National Signing Day/CommentsTalk:National Signing Day/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

first off, why the heck is this article just about football, there is a national signing day for all sports. Also, does this seem to anyone else appear to be a modified essay on the subject, not a encyclopedia article?

Last edited at 23:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 00:56, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 28 March 2024

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:39, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

National Signing Day → National signing dayNational signing day – Not consistently capped in sources, so per WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS, use lowercase. Dicklyon (talk) 05:22, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So you still take the undue word "consistently" as meaning "always", 100%? It doesn't mean what you think it does, especially in this context. This one comes in at 4-1 in favor of uppercasing, so please withdraw the nomination and let's not prove the saying "A foolish consistency..." as applying to Wikipedians and Wikipedia decisions. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 09:37, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, not 100%. The data show caps in the minority until 2005, and gradually increasing to near 80% (4-to-1 as you say) over the 15 years during which WP had it capped. Dicklyon (talk) 21:31, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, uppercasing is over 80%. Why we'd turn that on its head and lowercase now is almost beyond my capacity to stretch a point. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:46, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It amazes me how badly Dicklyon is grasping at straws to try to make his case believable. Both the capital/lowercase versions gained a lot of usage around the mid-2000s, likely due to increased media coverage of the day by national media. However, it is very consistently capitalized, as shown by the capital version consistently having about 80% of the hits for at least the better part of the last decade available. Frank Anchor 19:51, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The average over the last decade of stats is more like 65%. And don't forget that that includes title-case contexts such as headings and such, and places defining the acronym NSD, which are typically capped. Dicklyon (talk) 21:31, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A consistent 4:1 ratio, evidenced by the graph provided, equals 80%. But even if it was just 65%, which it is not, that would be a substantial majority to justify the capitalized title. Frank Anchor 01:15, 30 March 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.

Requested move 22 August 2025

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. – robertsky (talk) 14:44, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

National Signing Day → National signing dayNational signing day – Not consistently capitalized in sources, so per WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS, we should use lowercase. This was discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football#"National Signing Day" with the following findings:

The usage isn't nearly consistent enough to justify the current title. Mackensen (talk) 12:04, 22 August 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 13:45, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose per the 80% n-gram number, as mentioned and linked in the nomination, and the result of the March 2024 Requested move which kept uppercasing. Many sources uppercase, including the Sporting News, but interestingly the NCAA is virtually silent on the question. The nominator and others in a talk page discussion provide a good case, and some major sources lowercase the term. This seems an either-or situation, n-grams providing one end of the scale. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:58, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This seems an either-or situation Doesn't that conclusion in and of itself dictate against capitalization? Cbl62 (talk) 15:18, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No. It means that editors advocating for lowercasing are not stretching a point. Since the n-grams show 80% uppercasing, the current long-term uppercased title (since the article's creation in 2004) retains, as decided in a 2024 Requested move discussion, legitimate reasoning and reader functionality. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:00, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia's choice to capitalize no doubt has an effect on ngram stats, yes? Mackensen (talk) 11:07, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speculation and theory on Wikipedia's influence is an interesting topic, but has nothing to do with their present-time existence. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:44, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't mind, I'd like you to walk that out for me. This article has capitalized the term since 2004. Many books in Google Books were written after the fact. Wikipedia is one of the most prominent English-language websites in the world. By definition, Google ngrams is influenced by Wikipedia in a way that sources closer to the topic (NCAA, college football sites) are not. I don't think you can just say has nothing to do with their present-time existence without explaining why you think that's true. Mackensen (talk) 13:14, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speculation is not a factor in Wikipedia decisions about casing. We work with what exists in real time. Even though it covers further events, WP:CRYSTAL should go both ways when it comes to relying on assumptions and speculative guesswork if used to negate factors regularly considered in casing decisions. I can see your point, but many things determine how or why a proper name evolved, none of which should be relevant to deciding if that proper name will stay as the title of its Wikipedia article. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:43, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speculation is not a factor in Wikipedia decisions about casing. Absolutely right. That's why I'm puzzled by your insistence on the ngram data, about which we know the least. We don't even know (as you've acknowledged) that it's talking about the same National signing day as the one under discussion. Why prefer that data over the real evidence of national publications and the NCAA? Mackensen (talk) 14:32, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Two contradicting low-level posts by one NCAA reporter, followed by the wording "The views on this page do not necessarily reflect the views of the NCAA or its member institutions", seems far from conclusive for NCAA styling. What other National Signing Days? I'd wondered if there was a day set aside to honor sign language, but it was pointed out that it doesn't have the same name. Readers and friendly critics, please note that my responses here are to direct questions, not bludgeoning of the discussion. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:39, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Readers and friendly critics, please note that my responses here are to direct questions, not bludgeoning of the discussion I was about to say something similar; this conversation is continuing by mutual consent :).
This is actually my point, just from looking at it the other way round. Institutions have style guides for terms that matter to them to ensure that they're internally consistent. You would also expect it to be referenced as a term of art in the NCAA bylaws, and the bylaws do reflect the views of the NCAA and its member institutions. However, it isn't. Absence of evidence is relevant here.
Let's compare with the Super Bowl. You would never see the NFL refer to the "Super bowl" with a lower case "b". They've also trademarked the term. The AP style guide discusses how to refer to the Super Bowl. We have found no such evidence for national signing day. The fact that major news organizations do not consistently capitalize it reinforces that impression. Mackensen (talk) 16:46, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. There doesn't seem to be a COMMONNAME, so we can wait. NotJamestack (talk) 12:18, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's no guidance at WP:COMMONNAME regarding capitalization. —Bagumba (talk) 12:34, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suport the move. Cbl62 (talk) 15:15, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - no evidence anything has changed since last year. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 12:24, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. As Chicdat says, nothing has changed since last year. The 80% usage on ngrams, as flawed as a measure as that can be, is still "consistently capitalized" by any meaningful reading of the term. And speculation that Wikipedia's use of caps is somehow responsible for that in a WP:CITOGENESIS-esque situation is pointless and inappropriate. It comes off as straw-grasping, frankly. oknazevad (talk) 23:51, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, that's an interesting question. The ngrams are consistent, but flawed. The news organizations and NCAA are inconsistent, and we know that they're writing about the topic at hand. Why dismiss that evidence without even acknowledging it? Mackensen (talk) 00:12, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Because I don't think the specialist press is necessarily a good indicator. oknazevad (talk) 01:00, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The news press favors non-capitalization, per nom examples, while ngrams—based on books—tends to capitalize. Thus, it's lacking the consistency that MOS:CAPS advises: ... only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia. It also fails MOS:CAPS' basic Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization There's no special meaning from capitalization attributed to the basic English phrase, unlike Super Bowl vs a plain super bowl or White House vs. an ordinary white house. It's not necessary in this case.—Bagumba (talk) 00:19, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I don't think anything has changed since last March and 80 percent seems like a "substantial majority" to me. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 12:28, 30 August 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.