User talk:Dirtlawyer1/sandbox: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 00:51, 15 January 2015

PROPOSED REVISED VERSION OF TEMPLATE:INFOBOX COLLEGE FOOTBALL PLAYER

General reactions and comments

(This section reserved for big picture conceptual comments, etc. Parameter-specific comments below, in order to keep the discussion organized. Thanks. DL1)

In general, this looks good. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:37, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have nothing to add, nice job!--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:37, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looks pretty good to me, nice work Dirtlawyer1.--Yankees10 19:26, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Have been busy over the past few weeks and haven't been able to reply here but I did take a look at it - looks good to me! Great work. Connormah (talk) 03:35, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who likes consistency so when I see a new article I know what to expect. I think this is an excellent proposal. UCO2009bluejay (talk) 04:00, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm all for it. Looks much better. Bsuorangecrush (talk) 20:15, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I like it – it looks much, much better! Nice work! Corkythehornetfan (Talk) 22:37, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps there should be a space for their coaching career and nickname, and years/teams looks a bit nicer than the pastschools parameter. Otherwise it is an upgrade. Cake (talk) 18:54, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MisterCake: This infobox will only be used for (1) current CFB players, and (2) former CFB players who never played pro football or coached in college or the pros. Former players who coached in college and/or the pros will continue to use either Infobox college coach or Infobox NFL player, as appropriate. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:06, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder how it will work for those who only coached with the school which he famously played for. (e.g. Bill Spears; Henry D. Phillips) or those who were only ever assistants. (e.g. Herschel Caldwell) Lots of assistants are better known as players. Though I grant it seems to be consistent elsewhere, say with Chris Leak. Cake (talk) 19:17, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Like Looks good to me. I quite like it! — dain omite 23:16, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well done. I really can't think of anything to add. JohnInDC (talk) 19:27, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A question - will the template style be altered to make it more in line with the other football player/infobox templates? (invisible column dividers, smaller text) I think the code could use a bit of work (infobox is a bit imposing over the article as it is now with the large text and colors). At the very least, perhaps the text size can be reduced, like the baseball infobox? Connormah (talk) 05:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Connormah: It's exactly these esoteric differences that become a burden to fix and maintain when projects reinvent the wheel. It's best if we can avoid a "not invented here" mindset and share and reuse others' hard work and wisdom, where feasible. This involves identifying the differences, and seeing if there are technical reasons why different implementations need to be maintained. See my examples below.—Bagumba (talk) 23:21, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad there's agreement that it should be easier to transform the infobox from a college player to a pro player. However, is there really "distinctive appearance and graphics to visually distinguish American college football players and American professional football players"? I dont think there is much. I've done a quick mockup of Jadeveon Clowney's infobox 1) As it was on May 9, 2014 (before he was a pro) with Template:Infobox college football player, 2) as it would have looked for him in college with a few tweaks of Template:Infobox NFL player, and 3) as it currently looks with his pro data in Infobox NFL Player.
I've omitted "major" for now, see my comments below, but they can be added in if needed. The two templates dont seem all that different, either functionally or visually, to be burdened with needing to switch from one to the other when a player turns pro.—Bagumba (talk) 10:10, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bagumba, this discussion is to discuss the parameters to be included, not the graphics and design (yet). First, what parameters; second, how the new graphics and design will appear. Please do not pre-empt the process by jumping ahead. I have moved your examples to the second phase talk page, here -- a discussion which we have not yet opened. We can discuss your examples in greater detail when we're ready to present the proposed new graphics and design for the revamped template. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:51, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Parameter-specific comments

(At the outset of your comment, please specify the numbered parameter/field to which you are referring. Thanks. DL1)

[24]: teamwebprofile; I wonder about this one. What would the text display? I think we're better off with this and all other external links in the external links section at the bottom of the article. I'd like to see external links purged from the bio infoboxes across American football topics. An infobox should be about summarizing vital stats for the subject, not creating exits from Wikipedia. The baseball bio infobox sets a good example with no external links.

Just as a note, the web profiles are usually outdated as a lot of them only go up to the player's junior year. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 21:05, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiOriginal-9: True. Many of the athletic departments either do not update the player profiles after their senior year, or update them inconsistently. I am not wedded to this parameter, and I am content to leave its inclusion/exclusion to the consensus of WP:CFB participants. As Jweiss11 notes below, there is something to be said for a clean, streamlined infobox. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:51, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[25]: CollegeHOF; I assume the idea here is to populate this with an ID (like on Infobox NFL player) to facilitate an external link? Again, here I'd like to see external links eliminated. Displaying the subject's year of induction would provide more value without asking the user to leave Wikipedia. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:46, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Jweiss11: My personal feeling is that we need to include a mini-banner for College Football Hall of Fame members; I am indifferent whether we include a direct link to the player's CFHOF individual profile or not. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:51, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[23]: nonsportcareer; I assume this would just say something like "Policeman". What if they had more than one career, this could probably just be talked about in the article anyway since you probably don't want citations in an infobox. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 21:05, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WO-9, yes, that's the idea: a two to four-word description of post-college non-sports career. If they have two significant post-college occupations, then the BR hard line-break coding can be inserted to create a second line if both occupations are really significant. The idea being that this infobox is only going to be used for current college players or ex-college players who did not play pro ball or become coaches (in which case, other infoboxes would be used).

No, we do not want footnotes in the infobox, which, as a practical matter, means all facts in the infobox should be supported by prose in the main body text and inline footnotes. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:51, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unless part of their notability comes from their non-sports career, it should be left empty. We don't need homemaker, real estate agent, or teacher in their unless they gained public attention for it. Adding to body is fine. Note if someone was more notable outside of their football career, they would use a more relevant infobox. See Mark Harmon, which drops his football infobox as a module into Template:Infobox person.—Bagumba (talk) 23:02, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[+]: It might also be a good idea to have stat parameters added if this is going to be used on former college players. (like statlabel and statvalue) It wouldn't really hurt anything. Also, it doesn't really matter but the espn link might be useful to keep since it's the only one that seems to be used anyway. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 21:05, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WO-9, my initial reaction is to keep the revamped infobox clean and streamlined and not repeat the mistakes of Infobox NFL player, which is often far too long when photos, stats, and multiple optional parameters are invoked. Personally, I think we would do better to have a standard form of concise college stats table inserted in the main body text of the article. That being said, that's my personal opinion, and I'm just here to facilitate this discussion, not impose my personal preferences. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:51, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that stats would add clutter. The average reader who is not a die-hard college football fan into analytics would not know how to put career stats into perspective. Is 873 career rushing yards good or bad? No problem with them in the body.—Bagumba (talk) 23:07, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have several questions:

[16]: highschool; How do we handle the location of the high school? It seems like it should say X High School on one line and then city, state on the next, but I don't see the parameter for this content.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:15, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyTheTiger: The subject's high school will be displayed using the pipelink format used by Infobox NFL player. We want to maximize compatibility between the revamped Infobox college football player and Infobox NFL player for easy conversion for those college players who play in the NFL. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:33, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:42, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[18]: highlights; Do we roll awards, records and championships into highlights or give them separate parameters?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:15, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Honors, awards and championships will be listed in the highlights section using the same formatting as the highlights section for Infobox NFL player -- as they are presently supposed to be. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:33, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:42, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[+]: coaching history; How do we handle players that go on to become coaches?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:15, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All coaches will continue to use either Infobox college coach or Infobox NFL player, as appropriate. This infobox is only for current college football players and ex-college football players who did not play pro football (and did not become coaches). Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:33, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:42, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[+]: nickname; The gridiron football person template has a nickname field. This is most useful when dealing with college football players of the past. Players on say All-America teams were often listed by last name only, and you could be left rather lost without their nickname. For instance, R. V. Kerr would be better known as "Mush" Kerr. Clemson at one time had L. M. "Yen" Lightsey and F. B. "Bull" Lightsey which even the school in its own publications seem to have confused for one another. John Simms Kelly was known as "Shipwreck" Kelly; Edwin Hale was "Goat" Hale. This is not at all uncommon. Just about every player had one, and I'm sure others will know many, e. g. Germany Schulz. Consider the research lost if one were to confine their search terms for Schulz to those which list him strictly as Adolph and I think one gets why I bring it up. I would even consider adopting the practice of putting both in bold like with Bum Day or Dutch Stanley, showing how with some it's insufficient to simply title it with the nickname. I submit it's when both their name as Christened and their nickname is used in different contexts, or when they were known mostly by the nickname but their full name is idiosyncratic enough to be a better title. Cake (talk) 19:24, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MisterCake: I agree that old-timer nicknames are an important and colorful part of the history of college football. The question remains how best to present them. I see several options for dealing with historic nicknames:

1. Stated as an insert in the bolded name in the first sentence of the lead section, e.g., Clyde "Cannonball" Crabtree;

2. Separately stated and bolded in the first section of the lead section, e.g., Clyde Crabtree (November 3, 1905 – April 21, 1994), nicknamed "Cannonball Crabtree";

3. Stated at the top of the infobox in lieu of using the common name, e.g. use "Cannonball Crabtree" at the top of the infobox, rather than the common name, "Clyde Crabtree";

4. As a separately stated parameter in the infobox;

5. As one of the alternative names on the PERSONDATA template (does not display for readers, but is Google searchable for someone looking for "Cannonball Crabtree").

The only reason I hesitate to include a separate infobox "nickname" parameter is that I suspect it may encourage vandalism with the insertion of profanity, other inappropriate attempts at humor, and private nicknames not in wide circulation. What's your reaction? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:54, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible. Is there a history of such with say the Canadian Football League players or anything else with a nickname parameter? It's hard to provide a one size fits all here. Some were always referred to by their nickname and some just always in the football context and others less than that. I think option 3 would look odd to have as a rule but I could be convinced otherwise. One of 1 or 2 along with 4 is what I submit as a solution for the same reason as having his birth name in both the infobox and the body of the article. I would have to suspend judgment due to ignorance on option 5. Cake (talk) 03:11, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think such a parameter would likely lead to cruft. The lead or body of the article can mention popular nicknames, but having a formal parameter in the infobox is only inviting a laundry list of infrequently used nicknames, which we would be lucky if they were actually verifiable. Pretty sure baseball, hockey, or basketball don't have such a field.—Bagumba (talk) 22:55, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[20]: major - These players are generally notable as athletes, and their major is trivial. We are not shills for the NCAA's promotion of student athletes. AFAIK, networks havent shown players majors during broadcasts for a decade or two. Even for athletes who became as or more notable outside of football, their alma mater is sufficient. I mean, Barack Obama doesn't have his major. If it's intent really is for people more notable outside of sports, the major should at least be grouped with their alma mater so their education info is together.—Bagumba (talk) 09:35, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[22]: degree - Similar to "major", if this stays, it should be grouped with their alma mater and major (major currently is displayed (too) prominently at the top of the infobox, away from the "college" field in "Career history".—Bagumba (talk) 09:35, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[19]: bowlgames Bowl games are a dime a dozen these days. Who doesnt make it? Don't need to see 2014 Foster Farms Bowl and the like listed. There's too many, and most people wouldn't recognize the ever-changing sponsor-named bowls. Might as well add conference championship games too if this is going in.—Bagumba (talk) 10:17, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]