Talk:2005 Texas vs. Ohio State football game

417: 382: 999:

records are off by 2 games, then it is incorrect. If it the records are the same, then it is incorrect. The record prior to the game will not be used to display anything, just to hold the information so that the person updating the record knows what the record was prior to the game. Plus, just as confusing would be a scenario of a anon who isn't familar with the template, sees the article, sees that both teams are 1-0, despite the game already been played and that Texas defeated Ohio. St.

888:). They have Texas at 2-0 and Ohio St. 1-1. Similarly, if you follow baseball, whenever the AP puts out a wire reports on game, they always have the winning and losing pitchers records in parenthesis, with the record following the game, not going into the game. Only in previews, do news agencies ever put the record going into the game, because, at that point, the game hadn't been played yet. Similarly, if you look at this recap from the Mets/Marlins game on May 1, ( 1052:. Altogether the article is well-written and is still in great shape after its passing in 2007. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. It would be beneficial to update the access dates/fix the redirects for all of the sources. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. --Happy editing! 427: 679: 560: 218: 600: 351: 520: 612: 572: 669: 648: 532: 21: 1844: 966:). (Acutally, that link is to the 2006 game between the two, yet they use the same format. Both teams were 1-0 going to the game and they were ranked 1/2. The AP adopts the same format, citing the record after the game, citing the ranking before the game.) Reference 41 utilizes the same format (article found @ 981:

One problem with switching is that our articles often start ahead of the game, especially with bowl games. Then the same article evolves through the course of the game and beyond the finish. That is not true in the case of regular media where they tend to have one article prior to the game and then

961:

True it may be confusing to some, but the fact is, the consensus seems to be that way. What would be more confusing is to have one standard everywhere, and then Knowledge (XXG) have a different standard. To add to that fact, reference 29 in this article mentions number 2 Texas defeating number 4 Ohio

942:

I prefer the current format. When I think of a previous game, I think of their ranking before the game was played, or rather, the rankings that existed at kickoff. For instance, if a #5 ranked team played an unranked team and lost, I would be more interested in the fact that they were #5 going into

998:

Surely this could be easily avoided. The template could have a field for record prior to the game, and a field for record after the game. Where prior to the game, the two fields can have the same value, and then once the game is over with, the record after the game can be updated. That way, if the

863:

I do think it makes sense to have the records stated as they were coming into the game. We do the same thing with the rankings. It lets the viewer see how the teams were doing before they matched up. If two teams are ranked #1 and #2 coming into a game, we need to say that right up front. The

804:

OK, thank you. That was probably a cut and paste from the main article. Once downside to the ref/ref format is that if the one fully spelled-out instance of the reference gets deleted (or in this case if it does not get copied over to a new article) then any short form references will no longer

907:

Also, if you note the Texas/Oh. St. box score I linked to, they do in fact put the rankings going into the game, but they put the records, after the game. So while it may not make complete sense, that is the standard that seems to be the predominant within sports coverage.

31: 982:

a completely different article after the game. Our template would be up before, during, and after the game. I think it would be confusing for the record to be changing inside the template. People would try to re-update a record that had been updated already.

892:), you see that the pitchers records, both within the text and in the box score, it is after the fact. Also, I'm not denying that news papers do write it like you do, though I can't recall ever seeing it written that way. Mind offering me some source? 823:

Great Job with this article. It has plenty of citations and references for a GA and it's well written. The article is also stable and contains plenty of images, but the 5th reference is blank. Beyond that minor mistake i'm passing the article. --

962:

St. and mentions that Texas is 2-0 and Ohio St. is 1-1. That was a Yahoo.com writer. Previously I linked to an espn.com article. An article at macbrown-texasfootball.com, which uses an AP wire report also uses the same format (article is @

181: 845:

If Texas beat Ohio St. 25-22, shouldn't one of their records be 1-1 while the others is 2-0. It seems rather peculiar that one would be more interested in the records before the game than after, seeing the how the game is already over.

943:

the game as opposed to them dropping to #15 or so afterwards. Besides, we have the teams' record as they were before the game. So having the records as they were before the game and the rankings as they were after would be confusing.↔

283: 2196: 1926: 1041: 867:

Also, news sources tend to say things like "The 1-2 Wildcats faced the 3-0 Panthers yesterday and the Wildcats prevailed". If we stick with that format, then anyone checking the references is less likely to be confused.

2176: 1422: 1079: 72: 2762: 630: 2116: 175: 2767: 2722: 2197:

https://web.archive.org/web/20071204002148/http://www.mackbrown-texasfootball.com:80/index.php?s=&url_channel_id=40&url_subchannel_id=&url_article_id=1959&change_well_id=2

1927:

https://web.archive.org/web/20060813182327/http://www.mackbrown-texasfootball.com:80/index.php?s=&url_channel_id=40&url_article_id=1485&url_subchannel_id=&change_well_id=2

457: 2066: 2757: 2177:

https://web.archive.org/web/20060511231552/http://www.mackbrown-texasfootball.com/index.php?s=&url_channel_id=36&url_subchannel_id=&url_article_id=1349&change_well_id=2

2186: 1423:

http://www.dailytexanonline.com/media/storage/paper410/news/2006/07/14/Sports/Texas.Snags.Espy.Trifecta-2131713.shtml?norewrite200607252146&sourcedomain=www.dailytexanonline.com

625: 400: 474: 2392: 2348: 2200: 2180: 1930: 963: 735: 1080:

http://www.dailytarheel.com/media/storage/paper885/news/2002/09/14/Sportsaturday/Its-Not.About.Mack-1349746.shtml?norewrite200606280132&sourcedomain=www.dailytarheel.com

2782: 725: 2640: 2636: 2622: 2530: 2526: 2512: 2420: 2416: 2402: 2238: 2234: 2220: 1988: 1984: 1970: 510: 1734: