Template talk:Infobox college football player/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

This template and a similar basketball player template

Today, I stumbled over a broken and orphan basketball player template and, poking around, found this football player template. I modified this one and placed the results in {{Infobox CollegeBasketballPlayer}}. I plugged that into a developing basketball player article at Sean Ogirri.

After fixing a few of my errors in modifying this template, all looked OK except that I was confused at noticing that only one of the Stats parameters worked even if multiple parameters were provided. I worked up a modified version at {{Infobox CollegeBasketballPlayer/sandbox}} where all Stats parameters provided are displayed. Both these templates being so close to one another, however, they probably ought to work very similarly.

Would someone here be interested in looking at my changes and commenting? The effect of the changes are easily seen, of course, by adding "/sandbox" to the template name in the Sean Ogirri article and previewing. Wtmitchell (talk) 12:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Stones

Why does this template now contain a listing for stones? No one in the US, where almost all college football is played, uses stones as a unit of weight.--TM 16:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Links to external links

I propose we move |cbs=, |espn=, |bgafd=, |si=, |yahoo=, |rivals= away from the infobox to the external links section as we did with all other infoboxes (actor, person, television, film etc.). Copying from Infobox film's documentation:

Discussions about the fate of these links took place in numerous places over some time, with a number of people advocating removal of all external links from the infobox, if not the article as a whole. Others spoke of the value of having at least a link to IMDb in the infobox. Eventually, a far from undisputed consensus arose to remove all external links from the infobox and to move them to the External links section where appropriate in view of the External links guideline.

Important points towards this consensus included fact that the infobox could not include all of the available links and that it would be inappropriate to pick and choose one or a few of those links over others. Suggestions that losing access to the most useful of the available links (typically IMDb) would damage the usefulness of film articles were not found persuasive by many since such links could still be included in the External links section and the table of contents linking to the external links section having all of the useful external links is adjacent the infobox. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:33, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I believe in this case, these links are actually sources for the data in the infobox, so it's not really the same as IMDb. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:36, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

New version using infobox

just updated the template to use infobox which means it can now work as a module (see Mark Harmon). I temporarily saved the old version in the sandbox for comparison in the testcases. let me know if there is a problem. Frietjes (talk) 16:19, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Death date

I've restored the death date parameter, which was added recently by anther editor, then removed. It's a perfectly sensible, generic property, used by all our other biographical infoboxes, and unless college football players are immortal, is a sensible and indeed necessary addition here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:25, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Andy, it is perfectly sensible, and it is decision being made by consensus to be determined (see [1]), but we don't present decisions by fait accompli for active discussions under way. It doesn't really make much sense to ask for editors' opinions, and then do what we want anyway, does it? There's about a 99% likelihood that the date and place of death parameters will be added by consensus as result of the discussion under way. This has already been politely explained to User:Zyxw on his talk page. We function by consensus, after everyone concerned has been notified and had an opportunity to have their, and you are welcome to express your opinion, too. When these WikiProjects have made major uniform changes in the past, we have successfully conducted mini-RfCs of our active editors and have found that by doing so we have created near-unanimous, long-term, stable consensuses and have been able to function in a mostlu cooperative and collegial environment. It could be a model for TfD discussions if you were willing to try it, and there's no reason not to wait on the outcome. Thank you for understanding how things can work from a collegial, consensus-building model. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:56, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
What isn't sensible is thinking that a WikiProject can dictate a policy contrary to WP:CONLIMITED. WikiProjects don't own templates and a consensus formed on a templates talk page overrides all but site-wide policy. I'm pleased that projects give advice and guidance to their members, but that cannot be binding on other editors outside of those projects. I've restored Zyxw's edit as in my opinion it provides extra functionality to this template. You're already edit-warring by your two reverts against two other editors. I should warn you that any more edit-warring on your part is likely to be viewed as disruptive and may lead to sanctions without further warning. --RexxS (talk) 01:14, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Rexx, please wait for the outcome of the discussion below (and per my comment on your user talk page). Other readers should note that the transclusion of "discussion below" was deleted by Rexxs.] Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:22, 21 February 2015 (UTC) "Your opinion" is one of many. If you used this template on a regular basis, you would understand that it was originally designed to be a prelude template for Infobox NFL player, but it is has been proposed to give it "lifetime" functionality because some highly notable college football players never play professional football. That's a big part of what the discussion below is about. You are welcome to participate, but please do not jump the gun by making unilateral changes while there is an active discussion under way. The discussion is now posted to the template talk page, and participation is not limited to WikiProject members; any resulting consensus will be determinative. No, WikiProjects do not "own" templates, but neither do Pigsonthewing or RexxS; you know this, too. I will presume good faith, Rexx, but I believe you understand that your insertion of yourself into a template discussion in which you had no previous interest, could be viewed as POINTY and DISRUPTIVE. It could also be interpreted as yet another attempt to protect Andy/Pigsonthewing and to insert yourself into the disputes he often finds himself in. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:31, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Consensus for changes to this template take place here, not on some wikiproject page. My opinion is one of three opposed to yours, so you're on thin ice trying to force your version by edit-warring. You don't get to decide where other editors contribute and I think you'll find that my interest in templates predates yours as does the number of edits made to templates by me far exceed yours.
You mustn't copy other editors' contributions as if they were your own as you've done twice now on this page. I have had no option but to remove them as instructed at WP:COPYVIO. Now please revert your removal of the improvements to this template. --RexxS (talk) 02:03, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Care to explain why you instigated a debate on this template in your own user space - User talk:Dirtlawyer1/sandbox without notifying the editors who watchlist this template? --RexxS (talk) 02:33, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with forming a limited consensus. It would however, be presumptuous to assume that limited consensus becomes a de facto general consensus. It seems perfectly fine as long as that was a sandbox to prepare for a general discussion, and not to short circuit one.—Bagumba (talk)
Oh, I agree that most consensuses are limited in one way or another. And making a sandbox to prepare for a discussion is a good idea, but I do object to holding the discussion away from the talkpage without notification on that talkpage and then expecting others to stop editing the template in the meantime. Folks like me who watchlist lots of templates end up being surprised when a whole month's debate seems to appear out of thin air. --RexxS (talk) 04:02, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Alleged COPYVIO and WP:ATTRIB violations above: let's get 3rd-party input

  • @RexxS: You have three times removed my attempt to copy and then transclude the ongoing discussion of proposed changes to this template from my user talk page, where the attribution for all talk page participants is included in the talk page history, and my final attempt included the following notation:
"This ongoing discussion is transcluded from User talk:Dirtlawyer1/sandbox. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to this discussion.
"The foregoing discussion regarding this template was started in a user sandbox (see here), and transcluded to this talk page on February 20, 2015, in order to give all concerned editors the opportunity to participate.
I believe that the foregoing, in combination with the signatures of all previous discussion participants, are more than sufficient to satisfy WP:PATT. If you believe that such attempts do not satisfy WP:PATT and constitute violations of the WP:COPYVIO and WP:ATTRIB policies, then, by all means, let's discuss those alleged violations on the talk pages for those policies. Please note that if such attempts to copy and transclude the existing discussion do not constitute a COPYVIO, then you were engaged in an impermissible edit war contrary to your assertions above. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:22, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
  • @Bagumba:@RexxS: What I do next regarding the ongoing discussion of the template parameters remains to be determined. That having been said, Rexx has reverted my attempts to copy and transclude that existing user talk page discussion to the template talk page, and has asserted that such attempts are a violation of WP:COPYVIO and/or WP:ATTRIB. As noted above, transclusion of one talk page discussion to another is a relatively common practice on Wikipedia and is employed, for example, for Good Article reviews and AfD discussions. I have requested the advice of other knowledgeable editors at the talk pages of the two policies cited by RexxS, and I respectfully request that you raise any good-faith concerns or questions that either of you may have regarding my attempts to copy and transclude the ongoing user talk page to the template talk page (including those violations alleged by Rexx above) on those policy talk pages. For your convenience, please see WP:COPYVIO#Talk page transclusion: is it a COPYVIO or ATTRIB problem? and WP:ATTRIB#Talk page transclusion: is it a COPYVIO or ATTRIB problem? Thank you. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:22, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
My advice to you is to start a discussion here on this talk page as might be expected if you were seeking consensus on multiple or large changes to this template. I still can't understand why you thought it was a good idea to have that discussion in your own userspace, especially without posting a notice here to alert editors who watchlist the page, but let's not pursue that now. By all means summarise here the discussions in your sandbox and provide a permalink here so that editors can see what was debated even if you re-use your sandbox. Copy-paste is a clear violation of WP:ATTRIB and I've never come across any transclusion of a user's sandbox into an article/template talkpage before. I assume that is because of the transient nature of users' sandboxes. I certainly wouldn't recommend trying to base a consensus for an article/template change on a discussion that would be wholly contained in userspace, but if you can show precedent for that, I'd be interested to hear in how it turned out. --RexxS (talk) 11:48, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Rexx, while I appreciate your unsolicited advice, that is not the subject of this subthread, and you have been asked to substantiate the alleged violations of WP:ATTRIB and WP:COPYVIO you have stated above. In the case of the transclusion, WP:Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia specifically states that "attribution" may be provided
"in any of the following fashions: a) through a hyperlink (where possible) or URL to the article or articles you contributed to, b) through a hyperlink (where possible) or URL to an alternative, stable online copy which is freely accessible, which conforms with the license, and which provides credit to the authors in a manner equivalent to the credit given on this website, or c) through a list of all authors. (Any list of authors may be filtered to exclude very small or irrelevant contributions."
In the case of the transclusion, a hyperlink to the original page was provided (see notations previously quoted above). As you know, Wikimedia maintains a permanent record of all edits in all wiki-spaces, including user talk pages, which is freely accessible by all editors. In the case of the "copy and paste," the discussion provides its own attribution for every comment of every discussion participant by means of the discussion participants' own time-stamped signatures; those participants' time stamped signatures provide their own attribution as well as a definitive "list of all authors" as required to comply with the terms of use.
I have started discussion threads at the talk pages for WP:ATTRIB and WP:COPYVIO, as linked above; if you would like to get a definitive answer whether your own interpretation is or is not correct, I have initiated the necessary discussions, and it only remains for you to participate. AGF requires me to accept your allegations of violations at face value, but if you are not interested in obtaining definitive interpretations of the policies under the circumstances, one may reasonably draw the conclusion that such allegations are without merit. I also note that these issues were raised on your user talk page last night, the courtesy of a response was requested, and you deleted that inquiry from your talk page: [2]. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:18, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) I'll be honest here: I had a bit of a problem understanding that whole "sandbox" thing. The concept left me feeling quite uneasy. It gave the impression of attempting to develop some sort of "' faux consensus" away from the actual site of contention. I assume that wasn't the intent, but ask where the notifications of it were posted. RfC, WP:CENT, previous link to move the discussion elsewhere? Nobody likes to be blindsided in 11th hour negotiations, and it does give the impression of less than forthright motives procedures. Perhaps a bit more care in preparation would avoid any such recurrence in the future. — Ched :  ?  12:31, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
(adding). I don't think "...I appreciate your unsolicited advice" is really a good way to start collaborating with someone. This talkpage really is open to all, and RexxS has obviously been party to discussions here. — Ched :  ?  12:31, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
@Ched: The ongoing discussion was started among all active WikiProject members in order to determine opinion among those two dozen project editors before moving to template or project talk space for !voting and determination of consensus. Prior to last night, there was no "site of contention," but there was an ongoing effort to poll the opinions of those editors who actually use the template on a daily basis, and I see no reason to apologize for that. As for "blindsiding" anyone, I note that RexxS has never previously edited this template, he has never used it in an article as far as I can tell, nor has he been a party to any discussion on this talk page prior to last night; given that his sudden interest in this template immediately followed Andy/Pigsonthewing's intervention, the whole episode could be reasonably seen as a continuation of RexxS's accusations and disruptive editing directed at me on at least two other occasions in the past week. Given Rexx's ridiculously quick deletions of my three attempts to copy or transclude the ongoing discussion to the talk page -- efforts that apparently satisfy a literal reading of the terms of use, and are therefore not violations of WP:ATTRIB and WP:COPYVIO -- one might reasonably question whether this is a POINTY exercise in support of Andy, as has previously occurred on two prior occasions in the last week. Ched, one of the things I have admired about you in the past is your impartiality as an admin; in that spirit, I ask you this: if someone were aggressively engaging Andy/Pigsonthewing regarding articles/templates/talk pages that someone had never previously edited, what would be your conclusion then? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:05, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Furthermore, Ched, it now appears that RexxS cited two policies that do not apply in these circumstances; the policy that Rexx apparently meant to cite is the WP:PATT subsection of Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. However, WP:PATT is not the final word on the subject; the terms of use are, which state "attribution" may be provided
"in any of the following fashions: a) through a hyperlink (where possible) or URL to the article or articles you contributed to, b) through a hyperlink (where possible) or URL to an alternative, stable online copy which is freely accessible, which conforms with the license, and which provides credit to the authors in a manner equivalent to the credit given on this website, or c) through a list of all authors. (Any list of authors may be filtered to exclude very small or irrelevant contributions."
For the reasons stated above, my three attempts at copying and transcluding the user talk page discussion satisfy the literal reading of the terms of use. Would you (or Rexx) care to respond to the substance of the argument? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:29, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) As I understand your question, I would point them to WP:HOUND. In this case however, it appears that you are trying to make a case of "watching out for", or "defending" another editor. I'm not aware of a policy that addresses that directly. I will say this however: It has been commented upon that Andy is not always clearly understood due to the brevity of his responses and economy of discussion. I will also note that Andy may feel restricted in some respects due to previous issues that I won't elaborate on here. I personally admire those who try to assist in those areas. I myself attempted to help in regards to another editor back during some image issues years ago, going so far as to develop (WP:FIXNF). Not everyone here (myself included) has the formal training to excel in the art of persuasion, and while your point is taken regarding RexxS - he (RexxS) can only speak for himself. If two people agree on something, even if it goes against your (or anyone else's for that matter) interpretation of a given thought, policy, idea, or consensus - that does not make either one of them wrong.
In a wider view of the whole sandbox/template talk issue, I see several things that may help clarify matters. From WP:Consensus there is: " it is not acceptable to invite only people favorable to a particular point of view, or to invite people in a way that will prejudice their opinions on the matter. " There is also WP:MULTI to consider. As to this particular template, I haven't really declared a particular choice in the matter. I hope that help clarify my thinking a bit. — Ched :  ?  13:38, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Ched, let's stay with the issue of the talk page copy/transclusion for a moment, for which I have been accused of violating policies that are tangentially related -- at best -- to the actual issue at hand. That was why this subthread was started, and which everyone seems to be determined to ignore regardless of certain inconvenient questions. Do you or do you not agree that my attempted copying/transcluding was proper under the terms of use as cited above? If there was no COPYVIO or ATTRIB problem (really, WP:Copying within Wikipedia, not those policies cited), and Rexx reverted me three times without valid reason, was that not edit-warring on a talk page? Furthermore, in light of the inaccurate citation of those policies, should my last edit to the talk page not be immediately restored? Please respond directly to these questions. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:48, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Adding: In regards to "The ongoing discussion was started among all active WikiProject members in order to determine opinion among those two dozen project editors before moving to template or project talk space for !voting and determination of consensus."; I would point to WP:CONLIMITED whereas: "participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope. " may apply. — Ched :  ?  13:59, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Question: Is this where everything started? I was looking at the sandbox history and the project talk pages, and it was as close as I could find to the "beginning" of this whole thing. — Ched :  ?  14:19, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
@Dirtlawyer1: .. re: directly to the copyvio and attrib things. I honestly don't know. @RexxS: will have to give you that answer. — Ched :  ?  15:05, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
The problem occurs when DL twice copy-pastes the contents of his sandbox, including other editors' contributions into this template talk page. Here are the diffs: first copy-paste at 01:08 UTC and second copy-paste at 01:43 UTC. That's what I explained to him was a breach of ATTRIB in this diff at 01:30 UTC (after the first copy-paste but before the second}. I was clearly ignored. He had just reverted three different users who edited this template page and was attempting to invent support for his actions. He still hasn't explained why he hosted a discussion in his own userspace sandbox, nor why he didn't notify the watchers of the template talk page.
Here is the list of all of the links to his sandbox: Special:WhatLinksHere/User_talk:Dirtlawyer1/sandbox. Can Dirtlawyer point out in which of those links he notified all of the editors interested in this template?
As for the attempts at transcluding his sandbox into a template talk page, I have explained that is a really bad idea because of the transient nature of userspace and sandboxes in particular. Nobody does that. His best bet would be to move his sandbox into a more permanent namespace and provide a link to it on this talk page as a preamble to starting discussions here - the proper place for such debates. --RexxS (talk) 14:57, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I don't understand why all the "include, noinclude, includeonly" stuff is in there. I don't understand why you were trying to add a different page to this discussion, rather than just linking to it. this edit makes it look to me like a whole bunch of people showed up and made a ton of edits to this page all within one single post. I don't understand the intent. I don't understand the "why" here. I don't know if it's a violation to policy, but I do understand why someone may feel that proper attribution isn't given: i.e. all those posts were not made to this page, at this time, in this discussion. I'm not saying you violated policy, I just don't know. I will say that it does muddy the waters though. It makes it difficult to follow in a liner pattern. (but I get thrown when posts are made out of sequence too, so it's hard to say) — Ched :  ?  15:19, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

break

  1. I think we're getting off topic as to this particular template topic.
  2. Dirtlawyer: No I would not block you for making that edit, although I think it wasn't the best of available choices here.

Returning to the topic at hand: Should the "death_date" and "death_place" parameters be removed from this template as was done in this edit? — Ched :  ?  15:42, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Of course the parameters should not be removed, Otherwise, we'd have the nonsense of articles like Doc Fenton, Sandy Stephens and Wear Schoonover (which currently all use them) having birth dates but not death dates in their infoboxes. I do not know of any other modern-era biographical infoboxes on Wikipedia, that do not have such parameters. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:00, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Publish

Regardless of any unresolved concerns any of us have, the code of the sandbox template as it currently is is far better than the live template, for accessibility (and the semantic separation of labels and data). It should be published, and the other issues resolved afterwards. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:12, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

  • There's no rush, Andy Let's finish what we're doing before we go live. That's entirely reasonable. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:15, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
    • It's not reasonable to hold up important accessibility fixes while you quibble about minor visual preferences. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:10, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

@Alakzi: There may be a handful of tweaks to the colors and graphics in the future, but I think the basic layout issues are resolved, and we can futz with any other minor details later. I suggest we go live tentatively, and I will take a couple hours to review several dozen existing transclusions in actual use to make sure we're not missing anything that needs to be resolved immediately. If we find there are significant problems we can always revert to the old version temporarily until they are resolved. So, let's plug it in and see how it runs, sir!

What time zone are you in? (I had mistakenly assumed you were an American until I saw your spelling of "colours" and "honours".) I will ping you back before midnight your time if I find anything in my sample review which can't wait until tomorrow to be fixed. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:37, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

DL: Since you are going through this exercise anyways, can I suggest that you place representative examples of varying uses of the infobox into Template:Infobox college football player/testcases? Ideally, the test suite already existed and any time we need to test changes, like now, we shouldn't have to reinvent the wheel about how to test it. Or leave the list of articles here, and I or others can help add it.—Bagumba (talk) 21:53, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
What are we missing from the test suite? Alakzi (talk) 21:58, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
It was a hypothetical, since DL said he was going to review live articles. I honestly haven't looked that closely at them. If he found anything he felt was not covered in test cases, it should be added. Also, it's a vote of confidence that the test suite is complete if in the future there is no need to further review articles for a couple of hours after changes go live.—Bagumba (talk) 22:09, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Oh yes, I agree, I just thought we had complete coverage. Alakzi (talk) 22:12, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I would very much have liked to have prepared a wider range of test case examples for (1) current players, (2) former players, and (3) dead players, but we were trying to satisfy at least one editor's desire to go live ASAP. Frankly, I was very happy to get the input data for the "typical" test case example cleaned up so it actually looked like how it was supposed to appear per WP:CFB standard formatting. The test suite was not really ready to do this on short notice, but I cannot complain because a remarkable amount of work was done today. And I must thank Andy for rewriting the simplified parameter coding yesterday morning; there should be precious few WP:ACCESS issues with regard to this template in the future, especially after the header text contrast issues are fully resolved with Frietjes' help.
There also remain a number of house-keeping changes, including changing several of the template parameter names (coded field names, not the display labels) to better conform with Infobox NFL player parameter names to facilitate easy conversion for current CFB players who make the jump to the pros, and undoubtedly there will be some AWB work to accomplish that. There also remains a talk page mini-RfC to decide which current parameters will be deleted and which new ones will be added. I will also get a better sense of what, if any, unanticipated problems may exist after this evening's review of a sizable sample of the live transclusions. You never know what you really have until you review the live ones. Thanks to everyone for the last 26 hours of work, but especially to Alakzi for his patience in working with me today. What now exists is a substantial step forward from what existed two days ago. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:59, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
"You never [know] what you really have until you review the live ones": It's product of either 1) the coverage of the test suite, and/or 2) your confidence in the test suite. So write as many as you think are needed. Alakzi or others can pare down afterward if they are technically duplicates.—Bagumba (talk) 23:15, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
I think the three test cases I described above should be adequate (there may be variations, after looking at the actual uses). My reticence to express unmitigated confidence is colored by my knowledge that the input data in some of the transclusions in actual use is a mess. There's going to be clean-up work, but guys like Wiki-Original-9 and MisterCake love projects likes this. Cake has already been working with the template since January to convert CFB players from other inappropriate infobox templates. We're not done with template yet, but my confidence in the existing code is much, much higher now. The remaining template changes can be made without it being a "big, hairy deal." I didn't plan to do this today and yesterday, but sometimes you roll with the punches. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:30, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
@Bagumba: As I suspected, most of the problems I have found are the result of data input problems. Apart from that, the template is probably 5 or 6 character widths too narrow to accommodate typical honors and awards and some team names and tenures. I think that can be easily tweaked. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:40, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
A test case with the maximum length of text expected before wraparound would be in order.—Bagumba (talk) 20:30, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, sir. Working on it. Started a separate layout and design subthread above labeled "displayed wiidth." Let's try to keep the design elements discussions organized, and together, so someone can make sense of this later. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:51, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 Published. You can ping me anytime and I'll take a look when I'm online. Thanks! Alakzi (talk) 21:58, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Sincere thanks for your good work today. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:59, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Changing mascots

@Alakzi: Bobby Grayson presents an example of an interesting problem that will need to be resolved in using the revised template; Grayson played for Stanford University's football team from 1933 to 1935. Stanford's current team name/mascot is the Stanford Cardinal, but from 1930 to 1972, Stanford's teams were known as the "Stanford Indians," and from 1973 to 1982, as the "Stanford Cardinals." What is the proper coding to modify the dynamic parameter "school" so that it links to Stanford Cardinal football, but displays "Stanford Indians" or "Stanford Cardinals," as appropriate. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:33, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

This problem existed before; it is not a consequence of the revised template. There exists a redirect from Stanford football, so you can simply omit the team name. Alakzi (talk) 11:52, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I know that this is a pre-existing problem, and did not arise from recent changes. The problem is that the Stanford football redirect does not invoke the team colors, and the Stanford Cardinal current mascot does not display the correct team name for the era: [3]. I understand that there is a proper way to pipe the data input entry and display the correct team name for the given era. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:18, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Fixed. Alakzi (talk) 12:32, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the fix, Alakzi. This is obviously not an urgent problem, but is there any way to get the correct, era-specific team mascot to display in the infobox? Perhaps we can solve this issue by adding the alternate nicknames into the list that ties the "school" parameter to the team colors? There are more than a dozen major college football programs whose mascots have changed over the years, so this is not a one-off problem. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:48, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, we can simply expand the list with alternative names. I can do it if you don't feel confident with editing the Lua module. Alakzi (talk) 14:55, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Well, I am trying to learn as much template coding as I can, as quickly as I can. Can you show me where the "list" is buried? I may or may not be confident enough to edit it yet, but I can certainly compile the list of alternate nicknames to be added to it. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:04, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Right here. Read the "Format" section of the documentation, and try your changes in the sandbox. Alakzi (talk) 15:07, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, sir. That looks pretty easy. I'll ping you if I have any questions. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:10, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Career highlights

The "Career highlights" header was recently changed to "Championships and honors". I don't really care either way, but does this imply stats records and leaders do not belong here? Articles like Samaje Perine list records held, and we know certain editors do like their stats. Whatever the direction, some guidance at Template:Infobox_college_football_player/doc would be helpful.—Bagumba (talk) 23:28, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

NFL, CFL, NBA, and MLB say career highlights and awards. There aren't really tons of people adding random stats and stuff anyway, you can just remove them if you see it. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 18:24, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Accessible & semantic version

I've made a new, accessible and semantic version of this in the sandbox.

It's more accessible, and semantic, because is puts the labels and values into separate table cells, making it easier for software to distinguish them. This includes software used by blind people to have pages read out by voice synthesisers, and tools which parse or scrape the data, for example to import it into a spreadsheet, or into Wikidata. This is also more in keeping with how the underlying {{Infobox}} template is meant to be used, and with the way infoboxes are presented across most of Wikipedia.

The test cases all appear to work correctly. Does anyone want to tweak the styling, or have any other suggestions for improvement, before I make it go live? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:05, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

  • It looks like we're missing the underscore-less parameters for height in the sandbox. Alakzi (talk) 17:33, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Yes, I do object and I have raised several layout and design questions that have not been addressed. Exactly what is the rush to make the revised template "go live" here? Why do two template editors believe they should have the last say on the same day changes have been proposed? This template has exited in more or less the same format for six and a half years with no objections. I think a little more discussion is appropriate. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:17, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
      • Where's this coming from? I'm in no rush, nor do I claim to have the final say. Andy boldly pushed the sandbox version of the other template; he was reverted (by me, at your request), and that was that. Alakzi (talk) 18:21, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
        • @Alakzi: I should have addressed my comment directly to Andy, not leaving it in the nested comments under yours. My comment is coming from the perspective of someone who has been leading a discussion to revise this template in cooperation with more than a dozen editors who actually use it on a regular basis. Andy knows this. The revised template that he has proposed in the sandbox (today) is such a radical departure from the existing layout and design as to be unrecognizable from the existing template. Changing the parameter labels does not require changing the layout and design; the editors who use this template wanted it to be improved, not take a step backwards to Infobox sportsperson (which is graphically horrid). No one who uses this template wants it to look like Infobox person or Infobox sportsperson, and that is exactly what Andy is thrusting forward and proposing to "go live" above. It looks graphically primitive, and we want something better, not something worse. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:34, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
          • Are you referring to the apparently invite-only discussion in your own user space? See above for RexxS' robust dismissal of that attempt at ownership. And try reading what I posted in the first post of this section. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:41, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
            • Yes, Andy, it was a discussion by invitation. Talk page invitations to more than two dozen WP:CFB editors who use this template on a regular basis. And that would be two dozen more people than those providing input on this talk page today, or at any time ever in its history. Sometimes, my friend, when you want someone's input and buy-in, you ask for it. You should try it; you might be surprised how it works for you. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:11, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
              • Since you missed it last time: "And try reading what I posted in the first post of this section". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:26, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
                • I missed nothing, Andy. Please explain how a revised template that incorporates the simplified parameter labels, but uses different layout and design graphics, is inaccessible to the visually impaired or anyone else. In detail, please. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:34, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
                  • If you didn't miss it, then you ignored it. Please clarify your question: to which version of the template do you refer? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:51, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
      • [ec] Where have you "raised several layout and design questions that have not been addressed"? Who said there is a "rush"? Who says they believe they should "have the last say on the same day changes have been proposed"? Why should a template which has a problem for six and a half years may not be fixed? Why are you calling for more discussion, while at the same time having a discussion in which comment has already been invited? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:38, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
        • See above: we do not want a finished product that looks like Infobox sportsperson, and there is no policy, guideline, or essay that suggests that it must or should. Four hours ago, you asked "Does anyone want to tweak the styling, or have any other suggestions for improvement, before I make it go live?" Can we agree that no revised layout and design is going live? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:11, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
          • More straw men. And of the three people who have commented here, you are in a minority of one, and I see no evidence of other people having appointed you their spokesman, so you can drop the "we" pretence. My question was "Where have you 'raised several layout and design questions that have not been addressed'"; "see above" does not answer that, there being no such comemnts on this page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:44, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
            • Ahem. "The revised template that [Andy] has proposed in the sandbox (today) is such a radical departure from the existing layout and design as to be unrecognizable from the existing template. Changing the parameter labels does not require changing the layout and design; the editors who use this template wanted it to be improved, not take a step backwards to Infobox sportsperson (which is graphically horrid). No one who uses this template wants it to look like Infobox person or Infobox sportsperson . . ." This has never been about objecting to the simplified parameter labels, but about the layout and design of the revised template. As for the "we pretence," "I speak for the trees, sir!" Kidding aside, Andy, I speak for about two dozen people who use the template on a daily basis, and there are still other final decisions to be made regarding what parameters to remove and which to add. Hopefully, we can get past the parameter labels and other improved coding and move to other things. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:06, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
              • [ec] Yes, and you quite clearly said that after I asked the question, and well after you made the claim I was questioning. I don't believe your claim to be a group spokesman. The changes discussed here do not prevent in anyway the addition or removal of parameters in the future; nor do they add or remove any from the current template. And no decisions are final. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:41, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
              • Please invite those two dozen to participate here. Until such time, I will remain sceptical that two dozen people are opposed to these changes. Alakzi (talk) 20:36, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
                • Alakzi, you're entitled to be skeptical, but I've coordinated major graphics changes for WP:CFB and WP:NFL in the past, and I always call an !vote at the end. My preferred solution may or may not prevail, but our mini-RfCs have always settled the matter and consensuses for those issues have been stable and long-lasting. Getting 15 to 20 people to agree on anything is remarkable; getting them to compromise usually requires asking them for their input before the decision is made. Most people are willing to accept less than 100% if they were given the opportunity to voice their opinions. What you don't know about this template is that there are unresolved questions regarding the addition and deletion of 5 to 10 parameters, none of which is really impacted by what we're doing here. Once the ACCESS issues are resolved and the simplified parameter coding implemented, I will call a talk page RfC with !voting to determine the adds and deletes. And, yes, every active member of WP:CFB and WP:NFL will be invited. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:15, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Good catch, thank you I'm not sure what the best way to code so many alternatives would be; can you show me, please, or point me to an example? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:38, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Layout and design request for sandbox

@Alakzi: Please make the following changes to the sandbox revised template:

  1. restore the the colored border around team and number, as previously existed.
  2. delink the "high school" parameter label, as displayed.

More requests to follow. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:19, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Not sure why you're asking me, but I've done it anyway. [Also, I'm not in support of this change, despite having performed it.] Alakzi (talk) 19:25, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Well, because you're working on it, and have the coding skills to do so, sir. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:30, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
      • Oh, OK. I thought you were asking me to revert my own changes, and I was about to point out that I wasn't the one who worked on this one. Also, I'm sure you can handle something as simple as unlinking a WL. ;-) Alakzi (talk) 19:37, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
        • Maybe. But I might break the wiki, too. Besides, I know talent when I see it, even when I sometimes disagree with it.
          Can you bump the template text to 100% of main body text, so we can see it looks like? I suspect we will want something less than 100%, but if you show me once how to tweak it, I can experiment with it on my own to see what looks optimal. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:49, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
    • I object to those retrograde changes, too. The current sandbox still confuses labels and data. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:40, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
      • Please use your powers of articulation and explain how these changes "confuse labels and data"? I'm sure a clever coder like you can work around such problems, can't you, Andy? If I'm not mistaken, only the parameter label and input data need to be machine-readable for accessibility. How does the coding for a colored bar impair that? Is it the absence of the displayed "Team" label? Are there no work-arounds? Infobox NFL player displays "No. 57," in the top color bar/section header -- why is this not a problem? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:49, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
        • I did work around it; the version in the sandbox when I started this section was the result. To answer your first question, in the Mark Harmon example in the testcases, "Quarterback" is not the label for the data "1972–1973". There is no label for the data "UCLA Bruins". Oh and while we;re at it, please stop breaking comment indentation by changing from colons to asterisks, or vice versa (instead use whatever the person you're replying to used, and add one). That is also an accessibility issue. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:58, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
          • Andy, I did not know that my talk page comments need to be "accessible," but, you know, I do learn something new every day. I prefer colons to asterisks because I often break my comments into more than one paragraph for readability, and I prefer the second and third paragraphs of my comments to be "unbulleted." You can feel free to join in me in using colons for indents if you feel compelled to be consistent for "accessibility" purposes. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:18, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
            • I prefer to show courtesy to whoever stared the indentation, and follow in similar style (unless there's a technical need to swap all comments to the alternative). You can break up your comments with <br />. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:32, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
              • Andy, I have usually indulged your preference for asterisks in talk page discussions where it made no difference. I hope you can understand my need for unbulleted multi-paragraph comments from time to time. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:04, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
                • I have no "preference for asterisks". Can I understand your need to make things harder for people whom life has already made things difficult, putting your own preferences above their needs? No. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:14, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • What are we aiming for here? I'm doing what I said I wouldn't do earlier (namely, toy with the infobox's appearance), so I'd at least like to hear if we've got a direction. I'm not sure what removing a couple of labels is gonna achieve, other than make the infobox less accessible. Alakzi (talk) 20:00, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
    • @Alakzi: Well, now that I understand what Andy's issue is (he wants a displayed label for every field of displayed data for "accessibility" purposes), I'm going to give it some thought. I'm a pretty reasonable and accommodating guy -- especially when someone can articulate their issue -- and I'm sure we can figure something out. I might also add that the revised sandbox version of Infobox NFL player has the same problem: there are no labels for the number and position displayed data. There's usually more than one way to skin a cat, so I'm going to think on it. I will probably have some technical questions for you and Andy; I hope you will both give me the benefit of your skills. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:28, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
      • "he wants a displayed label for every field of displayed data " Not what I said. Some, such as |caption=, do not need one. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:33, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
        • Fair enough, Andy. The caption does not need to be labeled. Every displayed datapoint does, however; got it. See, that wasn't so hard -- all you had to do was say that in plain English. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:04, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
      • Can we push the sandbox as is now, as a first step? Alakzi (talk) 20:34, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
    • [ec] Firstly, an accessible, semantically-meaningful infobox. Once that's achieved, then it can be styled, so long as those characteristics are not broken. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:32, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
      • Andy, like I said, I'm thinking on it. The most problematic unlabeled datapoints are the team and jersey number (e.g. "UCLA Bruins - No. 7") in the top colored bar. From the standpoint of graphics, layout and design, it works; from an accessibility standpoint, it does not. I get that, and I am not dismissing that. A solution that addresses ACCESS label issues will require that the design of the top of the infobox be rethought. I'm sure I can come up with something that will address your concerns. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:04, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
        • I think most readers, even non-sports fans, would grasp a number and team being associated with a player. In this case, a label would only serve a screen scraper, for which I am not aware if a WP-wide mandate exists.—Bagumba (talk) 21:24, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

@Frietjes, Plastikspork, and WOSlinker: to check this. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:58, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

[The following two comments were copied from User talk:Alakzi because they explain subsequent changes to the evolving sandbox template, and may be of use to other editors who are following this discussion. See the original comments here: [4].]

@Dirtlawyer1: "Quarterback; Senior" is particularly problematic; when read aloud by a screen reader, it'll be read like any other key–value pair in the table, i.e. with an equal-length pause. Generally, omitting the label is not a good idea. I know that "Senior" means senior (education), but only because I looked up the parameter name. Alakzi (talk) 12:14, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Yup. I knew that was going to be a problem, too, when I was reviewing the coding and labels last night. Need to be labeled "Position" and "Class," respectively. Having them both on the same line of text was much more space-efficient, however, and made sense in a sports context. I would suggest that you add both labels, so that we have those two label elements in the mix as we experiment with the revised layout of the infobox. May I copy these last two comments to the template talk page with your permission? I think it's important that others who are following that discussion be able to see these for their own understanding. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:15, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
"Need to be labelled "Position" and "Class," respectively." Which they were, in the version of this template in the sandbox with which I started this section. I also pointed this out to you in my comment, timestamped 19:58 yesterday, "'Quarterback' is not the label for the data '1972–1973'." (which were the values for the same parameters, in the testcases, at the time). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:24, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, Andy, we know. I'm not the editor who changed them, but in fairness to Alakzi he is actually trying to accommodate multiple concerns. But now that you have actually articulated your labeling concerns in intelligible English, we are trying to accommodate them in the revised layout and design. FYI, "1972-1973" was a data input error that has now been corrected in the test cases, as explained above. There also remain multiple other formatting problems with the layout and design, including the alignment of the teams/colleges listed under the label "college" -- with or without bullet points. You're welcome to help resolve those issues. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:21, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Please elaborate on these formatting problems. Alakzi (talk) 15:33, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Please see new subheader below. I'm trying to keep the substantive discussion of actual layout and design issues separate from the general discussion that keeps interrupting — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dirtlawyer1 (talk • contribs) 17:54, 22 March 2015‎
They were changed at your behest, with Alakzi saying he was "not in support of this change, despite having performed it." My point that "'Quarterback' is not the label for the data '1972–1973'" stands, regardless of the values used in the test data. There are no "formatting problems", just your bikeshedding. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:04, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Andy, pardon me, but I'm really not interested in squabbling with you any more. Since you're fond of green-quoted text, here's what I actually requested: "restore the the colored border around team and number, as previously existed." No mention of "position" or "class." Arguing about this further is pointless: we have already clarified your WP:ACCESS concerns, and they will be addressed in the revised version of the template, to the extent you haven't already addressed them yourself in the coding as it presently exists. I am inviting other experienced template editors to assist with layout and design; BIKESHED is a misplaced reference -- anyone and everyone is free to edit this template. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:54, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
I addressed the accessibility concerns (they're not just mine, they're in our MOS) in the coding as presented at the start of this section. BIKESHED isn't a reference to who edits this template, but to your holding up much-needed accessibility and semantic improvements with filibustering over trivial visual changes which could as easily be made after the more important improvements have been made. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:11, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Return to layout and design issues

@Alakzi: Alakzi, I would love to have your help in making these changes, but you have previously expressed a reluctance to "toy" with the appearance. I have requested assistance from additional experienced template editors to accomplish the layout and design goals. No one is disputing the ACCESS concerns. If you want to remain involved and make the coding changes necessary to accomplish the layout and design goals, that would be a very good thing. I value your technical skill and input greatly. Please let me know. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:55, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

  • I'd be very happy to help with resolving formatting issues. Alakzi (talk) 18:00, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Excellent. I was hoping you would say that. You da man. I will break each design issue out below, so we and other new discussion participants can address them separately while maintaining some measure of focus on each. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:17, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Bullet points, etc.

Let's look at what we can do about the bullet-point problem for the data points under the "college" label. The bullet points are an artifact of the previous input data, and they look wrong floating in the middle of the infobox. If you remove them, the alignment of the label and first line of data is incorrect. Tinker with it by removing the bullet points in the example input data, and you can see what I mean. What can be done to correct the alignment once the bullet points are removed? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:17, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

  • We could apply the plainlist class to the row; alternatively, I could run AWB to wrap lists in {{Plainlist}}. Alakzi (talk) 18:20, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Alakzi, I am not knowledgeable enough to express an opinion? Given the two alternatives presented, what is your preferred solution? Is there any difference in appearance, or are the alternatives simply two different methods of coding the same solution? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:43, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
      • Plainlist is a list without margins and bullets. It's what's usually used inside infoboxes. Alakzi (talk) 18:47, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
        • @Alakzi: Based on your explanation, then we want "plainlist" for the "college" parameter. More often than not, "college" will only include one datapoint. Only 10-15% of players using this template will list more than one team under this parameter. That being said, we do want bullet-point formatting for the "highlights" section. It is not unusual for a given player to list a half dozen or more honors and awards under as highlights, and the bullet-point formatting is used almost universally in all sports bio infoboxes on Wilkipedia. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:21, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
          • Removed plainlist from highlights. Alakzi (talk) 20:31, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
            • Thank you, sir. This is coming together very nicely. I will owe you one VERY LARGE WIKI-FAVOR for your skillful assistance (and patience) today. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:42, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Apply the class to the row in the template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:00, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Internal spacing and alignment

Can we do an internal line justification for the parameter labels and the data points, whereby the labels are right-justified with regard to the internal justification line, and the datapoints are left-justified with regard to the line? There should be sufficient space between the label and the start of the displayed data for each field to readily distinguish them. Should we also use a colon at the end of each label? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:17, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

  • I've right-justified and appended a colon to all labels, and removed bordered for a consistent look with {{Infobox NFL player}} and other similar infoboxes. Alakzi (talk) 18:25, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Why right align? What's wrong with left aligning (the default in the parent template, and by far the commonest form across all of Wikipedia)? What consideration have you given to the readability of right vs left aligned text? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:02, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Alakzi, the justification on the interior justication line (labels right-aligned, input data left-aligned) looks significantly better from a layout and design perspective. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:14, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Andy, interior line justification is very common in professional layout and design, there is zero problem with readability, and it has been a common staple of magazine graphics for 35+ years. Interior justification is from the same era as hairline graphics, which we are also using here. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:14, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
      • This is web design, not magazine graphics. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:18, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
        • LOL @ Andy: yes, it is webdesign, and what you are suggesting is especially primitive for 2015 webdesign. If you would like, I can link to hundreds of websites that use similar graphics and look a whole lot better than Wikipedia's graphics. Wikipedia's graphics are very 1980s do-it-yourself in appearance. I know: I work with professional webdesign graphics people on a regular basis. Again, not everything has to look like the graphically primitive Infobox person. No valid reason whatsoever. Period. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:48, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
          • More straw men. And a weak appeal to authority (I've worked with professional web design and print graphics people and international web accessibility experts for over two decades). And I'm not asking about your personal view of what you think looks better, nor what others do (I can point to thousands of examples of left aligned table labels; and to thousands of examples of inaccessible design; we're not obliged to follow the latter because they are plentiful). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:59, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
            • There was no "straw man" fallacy in my previous statement; please learn to use the reference properly. Dirtlawyer1 (talk)
              • If you expect us to believe that there was no straw man, please explain who claimed that "everything has to look like... Infobox person". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:18, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Colons not a good idea. I'm not about to add an #if to each and every label to hide them when embedding the infobox; see Template:Infobox college football player/testcases#Embedded. Alakzi (talk) 19:10, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Can you explain a little bit? I don't understand the issue you're raising with regard to colons. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:14, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
      • Colons aren't used in any baseline biographical infobox. When embedding this infobox in, for example, {{Infobox person}}, the colons are retained. Alakzi (talk) 19:24, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
        • Okay. I take it that Infobox college football when embedded within Infobox person assumes Infbox person's formatting, but the colons are hard-coded and inconsistent with the hard-coded labels of Infobox person? In the absence of colons, can we get a little more separation from the displayed parameter label and the displayed input data? In an earlier version of either this template or Infobox NFL player, the label and input data were too close to be distinguishable at a glance. (Query whether we should ever have infoboxes as long as the one in the Mark Harmon article in any event, but that's an argument for another day.) Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:05, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
          • Labels being in bold and the data, not, would seem to be distinguishing enough.—Bagumba (talk) 20:18, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
            • I agree. Alakzi (talk) 20:28, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
              • Well, okay, I just checked the latest revised sandbox version by Alakzi, and I can learn to live with the currently existing spacing between the labels and input data. On my laptop, it appears to be about 2 mm or 1/16th of a inch or the equivalent of one capital letter. With label bolding and the interior-line justification, that's probably enough. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:35, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Agreed. Please remove the colons. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:18, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
    • I don't see need for colons when bold distinguishes the label from the data.—Bagumba (talk) 20:18, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
      • We're already in agreement on this, Bagumba. I'm just looking for slightly more offsetting whitespace between the label and input data. Makes it much easier to read, say something like 3 mm or an eight of an inch (or the pixel equivalent), because WP:ACCESS and easy readability are legitimate concerns, as everyone in this discussion has acknowledged. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:27, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
        • I can add a bit of padding, but the dividers won't budge. If the separation is insufficient, that affects all infoboxes and should be discussed at Template talk:Infobox. Alakzi (talk) 20:33, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Exterior margin offsets

Can we increase the exterior margin offsets, so that the text does not appear so close to the exterior boundaries of the infobox? As presently coded the first letter of text is very close to the tool line that defines the infobox's exterior boundary. (This problem may or may not be alleviated by a resolution of the internal spacing and alignment issue mentioned above.) Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:17, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

  • See above. Alakzi (talk) 18:27, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Infobox type font

Is the present infobox font size 100% of main body text? It appears so to me. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:17, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

  • It is set at 95%. Alakzi (talk) 18:26, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
    • It looks good to me. How's it look to your eye? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:32, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
      • Looks fine to me as well. Alakzi (talk) 18:37, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Interior tool lines

If possible, I would like to maintain the interior hairline divisions, as they exist in the present sandbox template. The interior tool lines were among the graphics which imparted the infobox's "look." Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:32, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

  • I've added a 1 px-border between data rows. Alakzi (talk) 18:37, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Looks good, and preserves some of the original look of the existing infobox — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dirtlawyer1 (talk • contribs) 19:19, 22 March 2015‎
  • Why are these lines needed? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:03, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Because there is no mandate in policy or the guidelines that every infobox on Wikipedia has to look the same and share the same primitive graphics, Andy. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:19, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
      • Would you now care to answer my question: "Why are these lines needed?" Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:44, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
        • Not really. I've already answered you once. I'm beginning to sense some real WP:OWN issues, my friend. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:54, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
          • I'm not really interested in your fantasies. You have yet to answer my question: "Why are these lines needed?". That's "needed", not "wanted by you". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:08, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
            • "I'm not really interested in your fantasies." Please see WP:CIVIL, Andy. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:12, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
              • There is nothing uncivil about describing your seeing ownership here as a fantasy. HTH. Still no answer to my question, I note. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:12, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure the reason for the lines, but as past consensus has been to have them, I would suggest moving along unless there is a compelling reason to change and remove them now. Seems arbitrary either way, but we aren't designing this from scratch either. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 20:40, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
      • Can we see some test cases without the lines? I tend to think that these make the infobox seem a bit bulky. Connormah (talk) 21:20, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
        • @Connormah: As you can see from the latest iteration of the sandbox template, the interior tool lines do not add a lot of "bulk" -- it's the equivalent of about 3/4 of one line of text. We are trying to preserve as much of the template's previous distinctive styling and improve upon it, while also simplifying and standardizing the coding (which has already happened). In the end, I anticipate that the upgraded infobox will look more like Infobox MLB player, and less like the very generic Infobox person. I also anticipate that the final iteration of the colors and graphics will be very similar to those used for the existing navboxes for college sports teams (see, e.g., Template:UCLA Bruins football). Having consistent graphics for all college sports navboxes, infoboxes, team pages and athlete bio pages has been a long term goal of these projects. After finishing this template, the next step is to revamp the infoboxes used for the college team pages, which are pretty primitive. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:33, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Colors

Can we have an override switch that permits the user to substitute white text reversed out of the color bars, rather than the second team color? When both team colors are darker, the contrast between the color bars used for section headers and the section header text is sometimes insufficient for easy legibility. This is clearly a WP:ACCESS issue. For an example, please see the Charlie LaPradd article, where the Florida Gators team colors of dark royal blue (used for the color bars) and medium orange (used for section header text) do not provide sufficient contrast. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:32, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Waiting for a reply from Frietjes before I add this to links. Alakzi (talk) 18:54, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
    • That's probably a good idea, Alakzi. Frietjes designed the present color coding scheme for American college sports, and I am sure she will have some useful input on this issue and others related to these template revisions. What I'm looking for is an override for the text color when needed for good background/text contrast in this template, though, and not a significant remodeling of her college colors coding scheme. I had pinged her earlier, and I sure she will have a look-see when the dust settles. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:24, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
      • I don't think we should be overriding colors at the infobox level. The expertise should be centralized. If the text color make for poor contrast, a single change should be capable of changing all team instances. I believe this is at Module:College color/data.—Bagumba (talk) 20:45, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
        • This would be preferable if the second colour is only used to colour text. Please note that Module:College color has an override, |color=. Alakzi (talk) 20:48, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
          • I'm not exactly sure how the color table is used. Perhaps there needs to be a dedicated color entry where the secondary color is not suitable for text. Again, the requirement is that infobox users shouldn't have to worry about color choices.—Bagumba (talk) 20:53, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
            • OK, I agree with that. @Dirtlawyer1: Can I strike this one off? Alakzi (talk) 21:06, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
              • Yes, Alakzi, please feel free to punt and let Frietjes deal with this one. Strike it off your list, but it still needs to be resolved by someone, as the Charlie LaPradd example clearly shows. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:11, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
              • @Bagumba:@Alakzi: The college team colors table is designed to be used for all college sports graphic templates, including player infoboxes and team and coach navboxes. The team and coach navboxes, however, all are hard-coded to use reversed white for their exterior headers (see, e.g., Template:Florida Gators football coach navbox), and only use the second team color for tool line graphic accents. The color table is not used for the colors for the infoboxes on individual team pages, which remain individually coded, and white can be separately chosen as the text color when there is insufficient background/text contrast when the team colors are used for both section head background bars and text. Frietjes is familiar with the contrast problem, as are some of the other old-timer WP:CFB and WP:CBB regulars who pushed for the uniform formatting for the coach and team navboxes back in 2000-10. This still needs to be universally addressed for all of the college team infoboxes . . . , but, hey, one problem at a time. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:11, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
                • @Dirtlawyer1: I can definitely do what you ask; it's just that my fix is somewhat inelegant, and it'd be better if this were addressed centrally. Anyway, is this everything? Alakzi (talk) 21:15, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
                • DL: I just discovered the amount of hard coding recently. UCLA constantly changes colors, and moreover has different colors for academics vs athletics. As you can imagine, the non-central encoding of colors makes it tedious to fix. Also, a lot of the color templates are not documented for the average editor to use yet. In the ideal world, there is a high-level template where all a user needs to do is enter a team name for any infobox or navbox wrapper, or at the very least knows which standard template to use to get those colors. You can look at Template:UCLA Bruins men's basketball navbox or UCLA Bruins men's basketball, which at least call {{CollegePrimaryHex}} to get the color.—Bagumba (talk) 21:35, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
                  • Bags: I emphatically agree with you. Please see my comment below. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:45, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

@Alakzi: Let's wait to see what Frietjes has to say about the best way to proceed regarding colors; no doubt the two of you can arrive at the most elegant solution working together. I think Bagumba is right: my suggested "override" solution above is probably not a good idea, and infobox color selection, header text included, should be an automatic function when the team is chosen, with all such color selections centralized via the college colors table. One of the underlying goals in this infobox revisions project was to conform the team colors and graphics across all college sports navboxes and infoboxes; this is a big step forward in that direction. (Please see my comment below below about going live tentatively to review a sample of transclusions in actual use.) Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:42, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

  • in Template:Infobox basketball biography we use Template:NCAA color cell instead of Template:CollegePrimaryStyle. at some point, these should be merged, but the difference is how they use Module:College color/data. if you check the table in that module you will see some have three colors and others only have two. the logic for CollegePrimaryStyle is to use background = 1, and text = 3 or 2 (i.e., 3 if it exists, but fallback on 2), and border = 3 or 2. the logic for NCAA color cell is to use background = 1, and text = 2, with no border. I keep a table of (most) all the colors in User:Frietjes/ncaa which provides the numerical contrast ratings per Template:Color contrast ratio. at some point I would like to change the logic for Template:CollegePrimaryStyle to eliminate the need for an override for the coloring, but that hasn't happened yet. note that we recently made some changes to the automatic coloring in college basketball roster templates (see here) which seems to be working well. so, in summary, I say we just use the same coloring templates used by Template:Infobox basketball biography and Template:CBB roster/Header. Frietjes (talk) 14:41, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
    • @Frietjes: A great deal of time and effort has been expended to conform all of the navboxes for college teams and coaches to a uniform color scheme for each university/college over the last five years. This revamped template should track those uniform color choices for those navboxes -- what is the best way to accomplish that? And what is the best way to accomplish white text for this template's headers when the second team color does not provide sufficient contrast with the first team color used as the header background? You're our expert here, and have devised most of the present college color scheme systems that we are presently using . . . . Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:40, 23 March 2015‎ (UTC)
      • all the templates mentioned use the colors provided by Module:College color/data, so there is near uniformity. the only difference is that some use the secondary/tertiary color as a border, and some require manually overriding the text color. the best situation would be to have no need for an override. what should work for Template:CollegePrimaryStyle would be to use background = 1, text = 2, border = 2 when 3 is not defined, and background = 1, text = 2, and border = 3 when 3 is defined. however, that's slightly off-topic since that's about how to fix the contrast in the navboxes, and not the infoboxes. for the infoboxes, see Yanick Moreira and SMU Mustangs men's basketball, which addresses the problem that blue on red has poor contrast. if you still want the blue in there, see the roster in 2014–15 SMU Mustangs men's basketball team#Roster, which shows you how you could add striping by changing the color of the some of the headers. Frietjes (talk) 15:56, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
        • Frietjes, my understanding of WP:ACCESS implicates color contrast because of its impact on legibility/readability. In your linked SMU examples above, clearly SMU blue text on SMU red background provides very poor contrast and very bad readability for the infobox section headers. Historically, this is why the sports WikiProjects went to the white text on dark background team color for the navboxes (with the second team color used as graphic highlights, not text), and I think that's the logically consistent solution here. Ultimately, we should continue moving in the direction of a uniform color and graphics scheme for all of our college navboxes and infoboxes, but we can deal with highlight colors, etc., in due course. As an interim step to that goal of uniform colors and graphics, I think we implement the same text-on-background colors for Infobox college football player as you have implemented for college players using Infobox basketball player. What is the simplest way to accomplish that? What is the best way to code that? Are those the same solutions? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:31, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
          • the analog of the solution used by basketball biography is in the sandbox; see diff. Frietjes (talk) 16:36, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
            • @Frietjes: Okay, I've experimented with the sandbox template by entering different team names into the "currentteam" parameter, and I see how it switches text to white for some of the worst examples of low-contrast team color combinations. If we use this solution, is the second team color still available for highlight graphics, like we have for college sports navboxes, or has the second team color been replaced by white for all purposes? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 08:28, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Colors, convenience break no. 1

@Alakzi: Let's try adding the second team color as an accent to the top and bottom of the first section header, in the form of either a 1 or 2-pixel tool line. This will approximate the same graphics and use of colors that we already use for all of the college sports navboxes (please see, e.g., Template:UCLA Bruins football). If we do this, then we can contemplate making the section header text uniformly white reversed out of the dark color section header bands for maximum contrast and full compliance with WP:ACCESS. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:57, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Not every team entry at Module:College_color/data has a secondary color.—Bagumba (talk) 23:02, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
No secondary color? No problem. Text is white regardless. Look to the team's navboxes to see how the accents are handled. for example, Alabama and Penn State, among several others, use only a primary color and white. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:57, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
"making the section header text uniformly white reversed out of the dark color section header bands" What do you mean by this? Alakzi (talk) 23:05, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
All section headers would be white text, regardless of the second team color, thus maximizing contrast to satisfy WP:ACCESS and MOS. The second team color would only be used for graphic accents, not text. This is consistent with current college sports practice for our navboxes (see linked example above). Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:57, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't care if it's white, but I'm skeptical whether it's an existing practice. I found these already: Template:Michigan Wolverines football navbox, Template:Arizona State Sun Devils football navbox and Template:USC Trojans football navbox with yellow text.—Bagumba (talk) 00:06, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
white text would be a problem for Columbia Lions, as pointed out on my talk page. one option for a generally functional primary/secondary coloring scheme is the scheme used by Template:CBB roster/Header (check ones uses automatic coloring like Kentucky or Florida). Frietjes (talk) 00:09, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
@Bagumba:@Frietjes: Good points, both of you. Some apparently do still use the second color for text where the contrast is sufficient. And, yes, the Columbia Lions color contrast is a particularly bad example for using white text. I guess we need a defined text color for each team then, regardless of what we do with second-color graphic highlights. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:19, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Frietjes, I do want to get away from the giant solid blocks of color like the CBB roster; I think the navbox exteriors provide a much more tasteful use of color, with the first color used for text background blocks and the second color used for graphic highlights (and sometimes text, when the contrast is sufficient). Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:23, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

@Alakzi: In the sandbox, can we try out the graphics I suggested above: a two-pixel accent, in the second team color, at the top and bottom of the section header color bars, in the same fashion as presently used for college team navboxes (e.g., Template:UCLA Bruins football navbox)? This will allow us to make effective use of both team colors. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:05, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

[Previous examples of hard-coded "college varsity stripe" color graphics removed; replaced with example of Frietjes template-coded versions, which use the college color module, below.]

@Dirtlawyer1: Text colouring is not automatic. As has been said before, the colour combinations first need to be tweaked in Module:College color/data. Alakzi (talk) 00:12, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Understood, Alakzi. There has apparently been a lot more customization regarding the selection of colors for text and accent graphic than has been previously acknowledged. As I review the example navboxes linked above by Bagumba, I see that those that have chosen to use the second team color for text, use white as their border accent; those that use white for text, use the second color for the accent graphics. Some decisions need to be made.
In the example section headers you have shown at right, can you remove the accent graphics at the left and right sides of the color bars, leaving only the accent colors at top and bottom? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:23, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Done. Alakzi (talk) 00:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Customizing colors is going to involve more that simply always using white for text, or always using the second color for text. Refer to User:Frietjes/ncaa, and you see cases where white as text is not accessible, and other cases where the using the secondary color has poor contrast. I still contend that it must be determined on a per-team basis which color pair combination should be used for each team. I'm going to guess that a "text color" setting will be needed for each team, to free the layman from needing to know so much about each team's colors.—Bagumba (talk) 01:05, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Colors, convenience break no. 2

3-pixel accent with white text
Alabama Crimson Tide
3-pixel accent with white text
UCLA Bruins
3-pixel accent with white text
Florida Gators
3-pixel accent with white text
Columbia Lions
3-pixel accent with white text
Michigan Wolverines

The current sandbox test cases have been updated to incorporate the "college varsity stripe" graphics, thanks to Frietjes and Alakzi's handiwork. The varsity stripe graphics make effective use of both team colors in a tasteful manner, drawing on the traditional college varsity stripe used for college sports uniforms. Further examples of the varsity stripe graphics, with different color schemes, are presented in this discussion subection. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:02, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Nesting of template within other infoboxes

@Alakzi:@Frietjes: Do you know how many instances of nesting within another template exist for this template? Can we identify them and the specific "parent" templates used? So far, I have found only two examples (Mark Harmon, Kirk Herbstreit), and they might work better with an additional add-one module specifically designed for this template, rather than inelegantly stuffing them inside Infobox person. Please let me know if there is some way to identify the "nested" uses. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:47, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it's possible to do with a tracking category. Embedding other biographical infoboxes in {{Infobox person}} is pretty standard practice; see Category:People infobox templates. What part do you find inelegant? Alakzi (talk) 18:09, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
It's just those two. Alakzi (talk) 18:30, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
So, you've tracked the nesting already? Just Harmon and Herbstreit have nested infoboxes? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:15, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I checked with AWB. Alakzi (talk) 19:20, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Alakzi. So, it's a very short list for now. Are all infoboxes now structured to be nested, or is that a goal in process? I can think of other notable college athletes who have become judges, mayors, etc., and had other second-time notable professions after their notable college sports careers ended; in fact, it was far more common 50+ years ago, when pro sports opportunities were far less plentiful. On the other hand, there is something to be said for forcing the editors to choose an infobox based on which career was more notable. Mark Harmon, for example, is far more notable as an actor than he ever was as a college football quarterback. As a matter of good layout and design, what I really hate to see are two infoboxes on the same page, one directly underneath the other; that's even worse than these run-on 30+ parameter monsters that stretch 18+ inches down the page.
One of the optional fields under discussion for this template was the inclusion of a parameter for notable post-college careers. That would certainly be a good solution for Kirk Herbstreit. There's not much urgency on this point, so I'm going to ponder the graphic design elements for a while. Is there some way to get a wider sample of other nested infoboxes, perhaps a list of all infoboxes that are nested within Infobox person? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:52, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Header links accessibility

Spot the link
UCLA Bruins – No. 13

Per WP:COLOUR, "Links should clearly be identifiable as a link to our readers." However, that's clearly not the case with school and squad number links, which look exactly the same as regular text. Suggestions? Alakzi (talk) 19:51, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Delink the team name in the header. The team name is supposed to be pipe-linked under the "colleges" parameter; for example, "UCLA Bruins (2011–2014)". Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:18, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
P.S. Let's move this "header links accessibility" discussion under the rest of the design elements discussions, so we can keep the layout and design sub-threads organized together. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:21, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, this needs more discussion. Even someone without accessibility concerns would not know by looks that a link is there, but people in the know may have gotten used to it by now too.—Bagumba (talk) 20:25, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Bags, the current team name in the header is redundant to the piped link in the list of teams under the college parameter (see properly formatted example in the sandbox). There is no reason for the team name in the header to be linked per WP:OVERLINK. Nor, for that matter, should "No." be linked, either; it's a low-value link that requires no explanation. Let's delink them. Problem solved. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:43, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
No, it just put fixed one problem and caused another. MOS:LINK says to link the first occurrence. What we have now is a team name mentioned, but you must hunt for the subsequent occurrence to actually click on it. Perhaps we just call the top section "Team information", and make the team link—one of the most notable attributes of an active player—conveniently available and accessible at the top of the article. Otherwise, it seems pointless to "repeat' the info in the top banner.—Bagumba (talk) 02:12, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Not at all, Bags. Nowhere does MOS state that the first occurrence should be linked when it first occurs in a section header or the bolded text in the lead. In fact, it says exactly the opposite. Please see WP:LINKSTYLE. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:24, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Actually, this information is not repeated in the infobox. In all the articles I've looked, |pastschools= links to the college; not the team. Alakzi (talk) 02:21, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
That's even worse. A player is notable for playing on the college's team, not attending the college (superfluous major in the infobox, notwithstanding).—Bagumba (talk) 02:30, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
I've put the header on a new line in the sandbox; check the testcases. Alakzi (talk) 02:40, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
That's not where we want to go, Alakzi. Please see my explanation below. The college team does not need to be linked twice per WP:OVERLINK. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:57, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Maybe so, but at the present time, in the majority of cases, it's not linked even once. You can consider it to be a temporary measure. Frankly, I think that linking to the team twice is much less of an issue than not linking to it in the first place you'd expect to find a link. Alakzi (talk) 03:24, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
@Alakzi: The first 50+ transclusions of the template (see [5]) now are more or less properly formatted with pipe-links to the college teams listed under the "college" label in the "career history" section. This is what these are supposed to look like, and how the pipe links are supposed to be structured. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:05, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
@Dirtlawyer1: OK, and what about high school? Why is that listed under "Career history"? Alakzi (talk) 12:50, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
All of the section headers are stuff we inherited from the guys who originally designed this template in 2007, but there are parallels with other athlete infoboxes. I think the height and weight parameters should be moved to the top section because player size is relevant sports data, especially in a contact sport; that would leave birth date, age, birthplace, date of death, place of death, and age at death in the "personal information" section. The idea behind listing the high school in the "career history" section is that most big-time college football players had noteworthy, if not "notable" in the Wikipedia sense, high school playing careers; it probably fits best there. Note, however, that we do not have stand-alone high school football team articles, such as we have for college football teams. The proposed "team information" header (as shown presently in the sandbox) is a bit of a misnomer because all of the datapoints are really specific to the player, not the team. At present, I still think the top color bar header should remain the unlinked team name and roster number, which functions as a sort of subheader for the player's name. I am receptive to discussing improved section headers if someone has a better idea. For instance, the "highlights" section could easily be restyled "championships, honors and awards". If you've got ideas, I'd like to hear them. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:21, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
I've encountered that, too. There's a lot of garbage input data out there. Here are several examples with properly formatted input data: [6], [7], [8]. The "colleges" parameter is supposed to pipe-link to the college team (or teams) for which the subject played during his college career; this is standard formatting across WP sports projects. With regard to bad input data, please keep in mind that the last two days of changes have been a rush job that circumvented an orderly process that was already underway among knowledgeable users who were familiar with the strengths and weaknesses of this template, its input data, and its present uses. We were in the process of clarifying these sorts of issues when that process was interrupted. We always knew there was going to be a lot of clean-up to get this right. This job does not end with the changes to the template we are discussing here. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:52, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Except for unlinking the team and squad number—at your request—we've not modified the handling of any parameter; I fail to see how the past couple of days' changes have circumvented any other concurrent process. Should parameters like "pastschools" not be renamed before performing any kind of cleanup? Alakzi (talk) 03:02, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
If you haven't looked at the discussion among WP:CFB members in my sandbox, you may want to review [9], [10]. Input was sought from two dozen regular CFB editors, and the plan was to make the final decisions regarding parameters to be added and deleted, then propose a new layout and design, then hold an open RfC on the talk page to ratify the parameters and format with !voting, then clean up the input data and implement the revised template with renamed and re-ordered parameters. That was to be followed by the conversion of another 1,000+ articles from inappropriate infoboxes to this revised template. Instead of that well-ordered process, we've kinda put the cart before the horse and we're implementing the basic layout and design changes on the fly a couple of months before most of the preliminary work was completed. At some level, I suppose that's okay because we've cleared the ACCESS issues and implemented the currently preferred version of infobox code, so parameters can now be easily added or deleted using the new syntax. Anyway, we are where we are, and good things have been accomplished with your help, but please understand this project isn't even close to finished -- in the very near future the major coding will be completed, and then the worker bees will have move in to do the clean-up. Right now, I have detailed three of them to help me review the current uses, correct data input problems (as already noted by you above), and report back with any anomalies found. It's a process and we'll get through it, with some flexibility in the previously planned order of tasks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:49, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Here's my attempt at making the team link accessible at its first mention. It's very loosely based off of the "Club information" section of Template:Infobox football biography. It's a "Team information" header at the very top, with team, number and the rest inside the header.—Bagumba (talk) 04:21, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

@Dirtlawyer1 and Bagumba: I've tried a different header design, which avoids colouring the text, in the sandbox. Check the testcases. Alakzi (talk) 01:55, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
@Alakzi: I find the tri-colored stripe too jarring. Also, some teams won't have another secondary color besides white (see Module:College color/data).—Bagumba (talk) 02:24, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I noticed that too. Oh well. Alakzi (talk) 02:29, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

@Alakzi: If no one else objects, I'm ready to pull the plug on the two links in the first section divider (i.e., links to team and roster number). The number link is a low-value link that serves no good purpose. The team link will duplicate the team link in the "career history" section, as well as being linked in the lead and/or main body text of the article. We are more than covered with team links. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:48, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

The team link needs to be somewhere on top and also be accessible. Don't force readers to scroll down and hunt. I'm not even sure for accessibility reasons if it's even more of an issue; is a blind person able to access links, and would they need the half the infobox read before they can select the team link?—Bagumba (talk) 00:26, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Header links accessibility, convenience break no. 1

@Bagumba: I think we're making more of the "first link" issue than it merits. With the team identified in the first section header, I think the placement of the first team link in the career history section is (and should be) a non-issue. Please see the following example infoboxes for other sports:

Infobox basketball biography: Joakim Noah;
Infobox gridiron football person: Mitchell Gale;
Infobox MLB player: Alex Rodriguez;
Infobox NFL player: Tom Brady;
Infobox ice hockey player: Sidney Crosby; changed from Wayne Gretsky to show active player
Infobox football biography: David de Gea; and
Infobox swimmer: Dara Torres.

I'm seeing a pattern here: none of these have the team linked at the top of the box. In fact, in all of them, the first visible team link is two or more subsections down the box. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:44, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

@Dirtlawyer1: The team is a link on the basketball one. But of course you'd never know; it masquerades as regular text. We can ignore the three last ones; the team name is not repeated. I still see it as an issue, but it's not a deal-breaker. I prefer not linking to the team in the header than linking to it in an opaque way. Perhaps we should place the career history above their personal info? Alakzi (talk) 00:59, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
@Alakzi: Please see WP:LINKSTYLE: "Section headings should not themselves contain links[.]" Linking anything in a headline or section header is problematic. And because we are using color in the section headers, it becomes even more problematic because a different color is supposed to be used to distinguish links from the surrounding text and background. Besides, if no one can see the link exists, it's not terrible useful to the reader, right? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:21, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
LINKSTYLE refers to section headings in prose. I agree that we should not use a link unless it's distinguishable; it's what I said above. Thoughts on moving Career history up? Alakzi (talk) 01:34, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
@Alakzi: MOS:LINK say more than that: "as a rule of thumb editors should only link the term's first occurrence in the text of the article." FYI, I know my MOS. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:43, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
I think it makes more sense to have the player's information closer to the top, but let's try moving the "career history" to the top and let's see how it looks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:47, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Check the sandbox. Alakzi (talk) 01:50, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Actually, I could live with it in the second section, if we leave the first section in place. Query whether height and weight belong in the first section? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:01, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
No, because I want to keep "College" close to the top. Alakzi (talk) 02:14, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Well, if you and Bagumba can both live with it as is, I can too.  : ) Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:26, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Noah has a link (same prob with no distinguishing color for it though). For hockey, Gretzky is retired and doesnt have a current team; that aside, Sidney Crosby shows that hockey links the first instance of the team name, but they don't list the team at all on top either (not even unlinked). de Gea, same as hockey, linked on first use, not displayed at all on top. Torres is linked on first instance also, again not displayed on top. Let's avoid blindly using WP:OTHERSTUFF examples. There is no logical reason to have a term that could be unrecognizable to a reader, and not have it linked on its first instance. I personally don't think the solution is to just remove the name altogether either. I had a mockup in the sandbox, but it's since been overwritten. When I get a chance, I'll make another copy. It involved making the first header "Team information", and listing the team with the position and class in the section. —Bagumba (talk) 01:06, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
"I had a mockup in the sandbox, but it's since been overwritten." We need branches. :-) Alakzi (talk) 01:11, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
I usually just subst: it inline. Always looks silly when you describe something and it's no longer there. "I swear it was there ..." :-) —Bagumba (talk) 01:14, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

@Bagumba: Alakzi has moved the "career history" up the box. May we now agree to remove the links to team and roster number in the first header. As pointed out above, MOS:LINK only suggests that key words be linked on their first occurrence in text, not in section headers, and not in bolded text at the outset of an article lead. Reasonable steps have been taken to accommodate your concern -- may we implement the sandbox solution, and remove the section header links for team and number, with your concurrence? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:13, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it's the best solution for the reader. Let me see if I can get some mockups together. Unfortunately, I don't think you saw my earlier example before it got zapped in the sandbox, so I'm interested in feedback.—Bagumba (talk) 22:28, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
He saw it; see his comment dated 13:21, 24 March 2015 (UTC). Alakzi (talk) 22:50, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
His responses are too long for my short attention span LOL. I think I'd be more comfortable seeing all the options side by side, so I'll see what I can do (even if it's only for myself).—Bagumba (talk) 23:09, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Header links accessibility, prototypes
Prototypes

Collapsed above are four examples for displaying the player's jersey number and team.

  1. Current implementation tweaked to unlink "UCLA Bruins" to address WP:COLOR: "Links should clearly be identifiable as a link to our readers."
  2. Charge header of first section to "Player information", move number and a link to the team to this section.
  3. Move "Career history" section up while moving order of "College" before "High school"
  4. Charge header of first section to "Player information", move number and a link to the team to this section, move section below "Personal information" like in Template:Infobox football biography.

—Bagumba (talk) 00:48, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Header links accessibility, prototypes discussion
General comments
  • The baby blue background behind the parameter labels needs to be removed in all options. It misrepresents the team colors, which do not include pale blue. If this is tied to the primary color, and is a percentage screen of the primary color, it's even worse for many colors -- e.g., red becomes pink as a percentage screen. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:10, 27 March 2015 (UTC) Never mind. Display error fixed. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:29, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Was waiting for you to call it out :-) It's some interaction with using {{collapse top}}. Either ignore the color, tweak whatever is the problem with the collapsing, or just remove the collapsing altogether.—Bagumba (talk) 01:16, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
      • We need to move the examples to a sandbox then, because the talk page is overwhelmed by your examples. Never mind. Display error fixed. Collapsed box of examples is fine. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:29, 27 March 2015 (UTC) Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:24, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "it seems counterintuitive to not have the first instance of a term linked" -- Not really. In fact, MOS makes several explicit exceptions for the first instance of a term not being linked, including the bolded text of the lead sentence, and section headers. Here's what MOS:LINK actually says: "as a rule of thumb editors should only link the term's first occurrence in the text of the article." MOS:LINK also says: "Section headings should not themselves contain links[.]" This is not limited to main body text. I think we are inventing a problem that is contrary to MOS, and does not need to be solved: it is not appropriate to link words in headers, in an infobox or in text. If we want to move the first instance of the team link up the infobox, solutions have already been proposed. Bagumba, do you propose to make these same changes to Infbox basketball biography, where the first visible team link also appears halfway down the infobox? If not, why are we twisting this infobox into knots over the same issue? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:24, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
    • When there is a viable option to link the first instance of a term, I don't see why we would not do it. At any rate, there is no issue with MOS:LINK with any of these options. I don't understand the desire to add a linkable term to a header that isn't linked, when the term can be easily introduced and linked outside of header.—Bagumba (talk) 03:30, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Off-topic to complicate this with Infbox basketball biography. Aside: AFAICS, the basketball infobox also has the same WP:COLOR issue with the team link. At any rate, didn't you earlier state that "... there is no mandate in policy or the guidelines that every infobox on Wikipedia has to look the same and share the same primitive graphics"—Bagumba (talk) 03:30, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
      • I'm happy to start the debate the Infobox basketball biography template talk page, too; nothing should be linked in headers. Period. It violates at least two formatting provisions regarding links, i.e., (1) not linking header elements, and (2) must be able to distinguish link from surrounding text and background by link color. Common sense suggests it's a bad idea. The header should be delinked in the basketball box, too. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:54, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Bagumba, based on your examples, are we now in agreement to delink all section headers? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:54, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
    • AFAIK, it doesn't hurt to have a link that is not visible; it's just not obvious unless you are in the know about the convention. If the solution is to make the term unlinkable on its first usage, and make readers hunt for the team link further down, I'd say just leave the term linked as is. Those who are used to it, continue using it. Those who don't know about it, use the later (more obvious) linked instance that we would otherwise be forcing everyone to do. I guess there is an option 5 now. So the purist in me !votes option 2—link the first instance of the team—otherwise, leave the linking as is.—Bagumba (talk) 05:18, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Per Template_talk:Infobox_NFL_player#Label_for_No., options 1 & 3 have the disadvantage that the "No." next to the team is not accessible without being in a table; it is currently plain text combined with the team. I guess that means the current team is not accessible either in 1&3.—Bagumba (talk) 20:15, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Nowhere does WP:ACCESS state that labeled data, i.e. "No.", must be in a tabular format to satisfy WP:ACCESS. Labeling the first section "UCLA Bruins - No. 7" is consistent with the current practice for the infoboxes used by all baseball players, basketball players, CFL players, and NFL players; the hockey player infobox does not list the player's jersey number. "No. 7" is self-labeled. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:02, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
      • Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Tables#Accessibility: Unless data is encoded in a standard format, it's impossible for a semantic parser to generically extract information. It's clear below your feelings that "frankly, I like the 'UCLA Bruins - No. 7'". All things being equal, personal preference is fine, but I trust you do not really want to place your whims above accessibility for all readers.—Bagumba (talk) 21:18, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
        • Please re-read the linked section of MOS:Tables, carefully. You are referencing an MOS provision applicable to tables, not infoboxes, section headers or text. You might also want to review MOS:INFOBOX. Our operative provision regarding accessibility is WP:ACCESS. Great steps have been taken to upgrade this template's accessibility, but you are attempting to apply guidelines that do not apply. Screen readers are perfectly capable of reading the text of the infobox's section headers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:42, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
    • There is a discussion on the placement of data in headers at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Accessibility#Accessibility_with_infoboxes—Bagumba (talk) 00:06, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
      • Please note that the hidden team link in the first section header has already been removed from this template. I'm not sure what your "accessibility" issue is at this point. It would appear that you are trying to preserve an "accessibility" problem with the hidden link in the section header -- one that I have repeatedly said should be removed -- in order to force your favored layout and design option. Here's an idea: with the hidden team link in the section header removed, there is no "accessibility" problem. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 10:43, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Option 1

This technically bypasses WP:COLOR, but it seems counterintuitive to not have the first instance of a term linked, forcing readers to hunt for the subsequent link. The team is one of the most important characteristics about a player. It should be displayed early, and linked.—Bagumba (talk) 00:48, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

  • SECOND preferred option regarding placement of team link. Assumes nothing in any section headers is linked, and we will use 25em infobox width to avoid line-wrapping in this example. Does not accommodate your desire to have first team link moved closer to the top. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:58, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Option 2

Order of data is relatively unchanged. Number and team remain on top, except moved from the header of the first section into its contents. Team is now linked and still on top.—Bagumba (talk) 00:48, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

  • THIRD preferred option regarding placement of team link. Assumes nothing in any section headers is linked, and we will use 25em infobox width to avoid line-wrapping in this example. This example does nothing to address your desire to have first team link closer to the top. Creates two unnecessary fields. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:58, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
    • "does nothing to address your desire to have first team link closer to the top": Confused, as this seems like the option which has the team link the closest to the top, as well as linkable on first mention.—Bagumba (talk) 03:30, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
      • Well, that's what I get for copy-and-pasting answers, and then modifying them. My objection is redundant fields, and frankly, I like the "UCLA Bruins - No. 7" header in team colors. Team name does not need to be linked twice, especially when it creates unnecessary and redundant fields. No new information is imparted to the reader, and linking team in the "career history" is more space-efficient -- we can also use the year-span parentheticals there. It's also completely consistent with how the overwhelming majority of sports bio infoboxes are currently organized. That's not an accident -- multiple editors have played with these parameters before, and there is a limited number of logical options for organizing them and ordering them. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:54, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
        • I'm confused as to what you are referring to that is "completely consistent with how the overwhelming majority of sports bio infoboxes".—Bagumba (talk) 05:18, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
          • Re "completely consistent," please review linked infobox examples from CFL, MLB, NBA, NFL, NHL, and swimming. The first instance of the first visible team link does not occur in the first section of the infobox, but most often in a section labeled "career history." Moreover, the only one of the five that links the team name in a section header is Infobox basketball biography, and it should not be linked there for the reasons I previously stated: (1) headers are not supposed to be linked per MOS, and (2) links are not supposed to be invisible -- they are supposed to be visually distinguished from the colors of the surrounding text and background. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:02, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Option 3

"UCLA Bruins" is not clickable on its first usage. Need to hunt for its first instance to click on its link. College before high school seems weird for being chronologically out of order.—Bagumba (talk) 00:48, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

  • FIRST preferred option regarding placement of team link. Assumes nothing in any section headers is linked, and we will use 25em infobox width to avoid line-wrapping in this example. Note that "career history" section has been moved closer to the top of infobox to accommodate your desire to have first team link closer to the top. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:58, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Seems option 2 is closer to the top, and its first instance is clickable too.—Bagumba (talk) 03:30, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
      • See my response above under Option 2. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:54, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
        • So we are in agreement that the first link is not "closer to the top" with this option.—Bagumba (talk) 05:18, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
          • In this option, the first visible team link has been moved one section closer to the top than in the original template (originally in third section, now in second section). This has already been agreed in previous discussion, and is currently displayed in the sandbox template. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:02, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Option 4

"UCLA Bruins" is linked on its first usage, but this core information is no longer on top. Mimics Template:Infobox football biography in placing "Personal information" first.—Bagumba (talk) 00:48, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

  • LEAST preferred option regarding placement of team link. This example creates visible double links for team within the infobox, violating WP:OVERLINK and adding a second unnecessary field to the infobox. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:58, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
    • AFAIK, WP:OVERLINK is usually only applied to the first instance in a section of an infobox. Unlike text, we allow that readers may randomly browse sections of infoboxes instead of reading from top to bottom. See other sports FAs that repeat team links in different infobox sections like Joe Sakic, Tim Duncan, Duncan Edwards. Take it as a case of WP:IAR used to improve WP.—Bagumba (talk) 03:30, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
      • AFAIK, there is no reason to repeat the same information in two fields of the same infobox, regardless of whether it's linked. Space is precious; by repeating the same data, we are either making the infobox unnecessarily longer, or potentially choosing to exclude another non-redundant parameter. WP:IBX. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:54, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Parameter names

[Please note that this discussion of parameter names evolved from the discussion subthread "header links accessibility" immediately above. It has been split off to facilitate focus on the issue of parameter names.]

Here's my attempt at making the team link accessible at its first mention. It's very loosely based off of the "Club information" section of Template:Infobox football biography. It's a "Team information" header at the very top, with team, number and the rest inside the header.—Bagumba (talk) 04:21, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

The label is a misnomer, as it does not link to a school. Alakzi (talk) 04:24, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for catching that. Changed "School" to "Team".—Bagumba (talk) 05:12, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Alakzi & Bagumba, here is the list of what the renamed parameters are supposed to be when we're done: [11]. The names of the first 18 parameters are supposed to correspond to the names and order of the corresponding parameters of Infobox NFL player to facilitate conversion to that template for current players who play pro ball (but not historical college players, however, who never played pro ball). Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 06:12, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Dirtlawyer1: The renaming parameter discussion should also entertain the option of a merge with Template:Infobox NFL player, as we discussed at User talk:Bagumba/sandbox2, and which also had a no consensus at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_December_14#Template:Infobox_college_football_player. At any rate, I think this all should be an entirely new thread.—Bagumba (talk) 06:45, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Bagumba, the renaming of parameters will facilitate easy conversion from one template to another. Any discussion of future template merges is way outside the scope of what we're doing here, which is upgrading the existing Infobox college football player. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 07:28, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

@Alakzi:@Bagumba: Do either of you have any specific objections to the revised parameter names and parameter order specified here: [12]? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 07:28, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

"Any discussion of future template merges is way outside the scope": If we are going to invest time discussing and renaming parameters so they match Template:Infobox NFL player, the question of whether we should really just be merging the two template is very much in scope. The upgrades could very well be easier with a merge. I do not understand the anxiety in having that discussion.—Bagumba (talk) 07:41, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Bags, there was a TfD merge discussion that closed on January 12, 2015, with 7–3 opposition to the proposed merge; that outcome deserves to be respected for the time being. Some of us specifically opposed that proposed merge in order to give the long- discussed upgrades to this CFB template the time and effort to finally be implemented. I would hope you would respect that.
So, do you have any specific objections or suggestions regarding the parameter names and order shown below?
{{Infobox college football player
[1]  | name           = 
[2]  | image          = <!-- Only free-content images are allowed for depicting living people -- see [[WP:NONFREE]]. -->
[3]  | image_size     = 
[4]  | alt            = 
[5]  | caption        = 
[6]  | currentteam    = <!-- NEWLY renamed parameter; now conforms with Infobox NFL player. -->
[7]  | number         = <!-- NEWLY renamed parameter; now conforms with Infobox NFL player. -->
[8]  | position       = <!-- NEWLY renamed parameter; now conforms with Infobox NFL player. -->
[9]  | birth_date     = {{Date of birth and age|yyyy|mm|dd|yyyy|mm|dd|mf=y}}
[10] | birth_place    = 
[11] | death_date     = {{Date of death and age|yyyy|mm|dd|yyyy|mm|dd|mf=y}} <!-- NEW parameter; conforms with Infobox NFL player. -->
[12] | death_place    = <!-- NEW parameter; added parameter conforms with Infobox NFL player. -->
[13] | height_ft      = 
[14] | height_in      = 
[15] | weight_lb      = 
[16] | highschool     = 
[17] | pastteams      = <!-- NEWLY renamed parameter; now conforms with Infobox NFL player. -->
[18] | highlights     = <!-- NEWLY re-ordered parameter; re-ordered parameter now conforms with Infobox NFL player. -->
[19] | bowlgames      = <!-- NEWLY re-ordered parameter. -->
[20] | major          = <!-- NEWLY re-ordered parameter. -->
[21] | class          = <!-- NEWLY re-ordered parameter. -->
[22] | degree         = <!-- NEW parameter. -->
[23] | nonsportcareer = <!-- NEW parameter. -->
[24] | teamwebprofile = <!-- NEW parameter. -->
[25] | CollegeHOF     = <!-- NEW parameter; conforms with Infobox NFL player. -->
}}

And, yes, I recognize that the consensus to include the new parameters remains to be determined in the talk page RfC I have previously mentioned, so I am not trying to prejudge the addition or deletion of any particular parameter. I am, however, trying to settle the issue of future names for those parameters that are already included, some of which are semantically misnamed at present, as noted by both you and Alakzi above. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 08:13, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

DL: The previous TfD was a no consensus. You've been around here long enough to know we don't count votes. Some supported a merge as well, and I never understood then or now the aversion to having a discussion. I am wary of a not-invented-here predisposition here. Perhaps Alakzi has insight on whether a side-by-side, parameter-for-parameter comparison of Template:Infobox NFL player and Template:Infobox college football player is worth pursuing to see just how different/similar they may be.—Bagumba (talk) 09:01, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Indeed. Furthermore, that TfD was improperly canvassed... by Dirtlawyer1. So much so, that the canvassing was noted in the closer's statement. It does not, therefore, give a true representation of community consensus, but instead of WP:OWNership by the canvasser and the canvassed editors. Such OWnership is also noted by RexxS, in the section above this one. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:22, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
{{Infobox NFL player}} is a convoluted mess—what with alternating team colours, duplicate parameters, presentational <includeonly>s, dozens of tracking cats, and God knows what else. I'd have been willing to clean it all up, but I've not got the patience to discuss every tiny speck of the infobox to the point of nausea. Alakzi (talk) 15:51, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
@Alakzi: Yes, WP is WP:NOTCOMPULSORY. Any assistance you can provide is appreciated. As you can see, even hands-off moderators would be invaluable here. Still, I can appreciate if you are feeling burned out here. {{Infobox NFL player}} has about 15,000 transclusions, while {{Infobox college football player}} has around 900. From an impact level, fixing access issues on the NFL infobox would have a more far-reaching impact overall on WP.—Bagumba (talk) 19:40, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
The phrase is "fillibuster". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:57, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Displayed width

@Alakzi: At your convenience, can you widen the displayed width of the infobox by the equivalent of about six alphanumeric characters (e.g., the width of "(2002)")? This should alleviate most of the line-wrapping I am seeing in my review of the new template in actual use. We want of avoid line-wrapping of properly formatted input data whenever reasonably possible. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:14, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Done, done, aaand done. I've: replaced the college colour template, per the discussion above; removed both links from the header; and widened the infobox by 2 em. Alakzi (talk) 01:54, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, sir. I'm continuing to review articles that use the template, and I've got a couple of other WP:CFB members looking for issues, too. I'll report back when I have more observations. I'm also in the process of preparing "typical" maximum width input data examples (from actual uses) to plug into the sandbox for continued demonstration purposes. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:02, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
@Bagumba: Per your suggestion yesterday, I have determined the maximum width input data for the "college" and "highlights" parameters, and I have added those maximum width examples to the test case input data. I have a very high level of confidence that the presently defined width of the template (25em) will accommodate all commonly used inputs without line-wrapping when input data is properly formatted per WP:CFB standard practices. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 07:41, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Good job!—Bagumba (talk) 07:43, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
We aim to please, Bags. The present displayed width of the template was tweaked by me, from 24 em to 25 em, in order to accommodate these maximum width input datapoints. The displayed width of the previous incarnation of the template was too wide to my eye, and I believe the current 25em version is still somewhat less wide than the template as it previously existed. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 08:25, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

CFBHOF link

The template, as originally designed, included a parameter for a direct link to the subject player's profile on the website of the College Football Hall of Fame. It is unclear whether this link is presently working. Could one of our brain trust review this situation and determine if the existing parameter link coding is working, and if not, take steps to restore its functionality? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 08:52, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

There's no such parameter. I can copy it from the NFL player infobox. Alakzi (talk) 01:38, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
@Alakzi: Interesting. In many of the transclusions in current use, someone has been importing the CFBHOF link parameter. I suspect you're right: the link never worked because it's not among the current templae parameters. When you import the link coding, please do not import the gold color bar used by Infobox NFL player. For the 900 or so members of the CFBHOF, the College Football Hall of Fame article is supposed to be linked in their highlights section, followed by the year of induction. CFBHOF membership should also be prominently featured in the main body text; it does not require the gold color bar at the bottom of the infobox to attract any more attention than that. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:05, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
If there was already a convention for listing CFBHOF, and this link never existed here, is the new param really needed then?—Bagumba (talk) 23:08, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Bagumba, in the WP:CFB discussions regarding the template, several long-time editors expressed support for the CFBHOF direct link, with only one opposed. In the existing infoboxes for college coaches, NFL players, and CFL players (and every predecessor template for the present Infobox NFL player), there is a direct link to the player's CFBHOF profile surrounded by a gold color band (see, e.g., Emmitt Smith). The gold band could be a glaring conflict with the two team colors, but I see no reason not to include a "College Football Hall of Fame" hyperlink centered at the bottom of the infobox in about 75% font size of main body text. Personally, I'm indifferent, but there is strong support for it among WP:CFB members, and I feel compelled to put this one to a yes/no !vote as part of the coming talk page RfC. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:25, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
If you're going to claim the support of unnamed other editors, please provide links to the relevant talk page section(s), so we can see what was said there, and be confident that you're not referring to another invite-only (i.e. canvassed) discussion in an obscure and otherwise-unwatched corner of your user space. And please note that we don't hold votes (Which is what you are describing, the use of an "!" not withstanding). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:37, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) DL: No problem if this is a semi-bold insertion, but up until now you have been pretty adamant on leaving everything intact as part of this accessibility exercise. Just wanted to understand where this was coming from.—Bagumba (talk) 23:39, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Stripping the gold color bar is a conflicting color design element. No one expressed support for the gold band in prior discussions (except me, and I've changed my mind 180 degrees). Having had time to think about it, I think it should be enough to provide a CFHOF wikilink under "highlights" and a single direct link to the CFBHOF profile at the bottom of the box. That said, the case can be made in the !voting; on this point I am content to remain silent and let the majority decide. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:13, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure why we've got any of these links in the infobox. Surely, a college footballer's SI profile is not a "key fact". ELs go at the bottom of the article. Alakzi (talk) 23:42, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Agree that too many is a WP:LINKFARM. I can see having one or two in the infobox if they are convenient for verifiability, esp. some info that might not be in the body. Links to prominent honors like HOF could arguably serve similar purpose as "website" param in Template:Infobox person.—Bagumba (talk) 23:52, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
I am adamanly opposed ot multiple direct links in the box, and there is no support for anything that smell like a "link farm," like that in the present Infobox NFL player, among WP:CFB members. I think there is already strong support for stripping out the stats links (ESPN, SI, Yahoo, etc.), and placing them in the External links section at the end of the article, as several WP:CFB members suggested. Some of the links are pretty close to useless anyway. One of the better ones, Sports-Reference.com, isn't even listed. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:13, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
You're positive this wasn't by design :-) —Bagumba (talk) 00:20, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Oh, admittedly, it was a design element. But infobox "link farms" were originally quite widespread; they've been almost completely abandoned in actual use now. I've looked at almost 150 examples of this template in actual use in the last 3 days, and the strong majority have no links encoded in the infobox template, and of the minority that do, virtually none had more than one. The users have already effectively voted their preference through non-use. Still happy to put it to an !vote though. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:07, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Photo caption

@Alakzi: Can we reduce the size of the caption text 5 to 10% to distinguish the caption from the infobox text? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:49, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

This is yet another change which should be applied - if there is community consensus, - in {{infobox}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:46, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Disagree - I would not want to reduce the font size of any part of {{Infobox}}. This was only possible here because we'd increased the baseline font size. Besides, it'd have to be changed in MediaWiki:Common.css; if I've ever got to post there again, I might struggle to keep my composure. Alakzi (talk) 22:53, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Infobox college football player and Infobox NFL player

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football#Infobox college football player and Infobox NFL player to help form a consensus on whether Template:Infobox college football player and Template:Infobox NFL player should remain separate or be merged.—Bagumba (talk) 01:38, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Stats links (format)

Maybe it's just me, but I don't like how the stats links are stacked up on top of each other. Could we maybe have it like this:

Stats at CBS · ESPN · Rivals · Yahoo

at the bottom of the infobox? --bender235 (talk) 19:18, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:LINKFARM, can we reduce it to just one? At the very least, move most of them off to "External links" section.—Bagumba (talk) 19:38, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
These are probably going to be removed entirely, per Bagumba's LINKFARM. 19:44, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
I remember when we only had one stats link per infobox, even if more than one ID was entered in the infobox. Things were simpler, but I like the idea of having multiple sources to choose from. We could still limit it to three-at-a-time, though. --bender235 (talk) 17:27, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
As a general rule, there aren't supposed to be any direct links in infoboxes; the stats links were seen as an exception to support infoboxes with sports stats. Then the links inevitably multiplied, as everyone added their personal favorite. Infobox college football player has no stats parameters. All of the stats links -- most of which are either duplicative or almost completely devoid of meaningful stats -- should be moved to the "external links" section, if the particular links judged to worthy of keeping at all. Some links are better for some eras, or some positions, than others.
As for player stats that are actually noteworthy, rather than extending the length of the infobox, I think we need to have a uniform, stand-alone stats table for (a) quarterbacks, (b) running backs, (c) receivers, (d) linemen, and (e) linebackers and defensive backs. What we don't need is to unnecessarily lengthen the infobox, which already can become ridiculously long when a photo is included. Uniform stats boxes, included in the main body text would increase consistency, reduce edit-warring, increase the ease of maintenance, and provide a uniform format that would facilitate player-to-player comparisons for our readers. So, rather than trying to justify an exception for direct links in infoboxes, or stuffing more selective options into the infobox, we should strive for something of greater use to our readers. It also should go without saying that player stats should be sourced and footnoted. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:05, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
But who's going to fill those stat boxes for all those players? We can barely keep up with adding those stat links to all of them. --bender235 (talk) 10:04, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

bowlgames = bowl wins?

Is the bowlgames field meant to list all bowls participated in, or all bowls won by the team? Lizard (talk) 16:13, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Blue banner

Can someone visit George Marshall and see that the title "College football career" does not have a blue banner like the the other headers, so it looks like data from the previous section. Can we give it a blue banner when embedded? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:33, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Limit height (in meters) to two decimal places

Including a third decimal place (i.e., height precision to the millimeter) like in DeShone Kizer is false precision. Could someone please limit the output of this template to two digits? --bender235 (talk) 19:31, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

bender235, should be fixed. Frietjes (talk) 15:26, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Good job. --bender235 (talk) 17:41, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Infobox_college_football_player/Archive_1&oldid=1141615294"