Template talk:CFB schedule entry

Colors

The new colors are hard on the eyes. Can we change them back? Seancp (talk) 00:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. User:Fbdave changed them again and I just reverted and asked him to come here if he wishes to discuss changing the colors.↔NMajdan•talk 22:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Help

Could someone take a look at 2010 Eastern Michigan Eagles football team#Schedule -- this is not displaying correctly and I'm not sure why. Thanks, cmadler (talk) 11:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Losing score first

Over the last few years everyone has begun listing the losing score first. So the score of the team the page is about is always listed first for a win or a loss. Why was this started when this template clearly shows the higher score first? Should this template be changed to show how everyone's been doing it for a few years now? I'm all for listing it the new way and 119 of the 120 team pages list it the new way. But one user keeps listing Western Michigan's pages with the higher score first and sources this template as why he does it so its the only team page that is not consistent with the other 119. If 119 team pages do it then shouldn't that be the standard and be reflected in this template?Bsuorangecrush (talk) 18:17, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 1 June 2012

Please edit the code such that a home game will have "vs." instead of "at". e.g. pages of Notre Dame's schedules which use this format list every game as an away game, regardless of the y/n coding within the tables on those pages, such that every game listed appears as "at X opponent", and no editing on those individual pages are able to make the games appear as a home game with the "vs. X opponent" listing. Please either make the y/n switch work within the away game toggle (is there a code that is "ifnot:away", then "vs."?), or please add a listing for a home game toggle similar to the neutral site toggle.

69.115.4.161 (talk) 01:43, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

The current functionality of the template is that if away = is anything but blank, the template interprets it to mean the game is an away game. If it is blank the "at" will not be added. If Neutral is set to anything but blank, it will add the "vs". If both are set blank, it wont say anything. You can see all three uses at 2011 Notre Dame Fighting Irish football team. It would be possible to change the template to only add "at" if the parameter is set y or yes or something else, but making the change at this point would result in pages that don't use what we choose as the "correct" way to enable the "at" loosing the "at" when it is potentially intended. I will update to documentation at least to warn editors of this functionality. Monty₈₄₅ 02:20, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Difference with CFB Conference Schedule Entry

What is the difference between this template series and the Template:CFB Conference Schedule Entry templates? - Curoi (talk) 03:28, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

good question, checking this, seems like any features in Template talk:CFB Conference Schedule Entry could be added here. that other template has only a fraction of the uses of this one. Frietjes (talk) 15:30, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Request to add a reference column

@Cbl62, Jrcla2, Jweiss11, and Rikster2: Does anyone object if I add one additional parameter to the template: a reference column where footnote links may be added to source the data for individual games. The parameter would be optional, so the column would only be displayed if the parameter were invoked. The column header would be the relatively self-explanatory "Ref.", abbreviated to minimize any added width to the season records table. After recently reviewing many of our college sports articles, it seems that the omission of any source for the data included in our season tables is an obvious one. The overwhelming majority of our season tables are unsourced, and this is contrary to the spirit of WP:V. Given the small space occupied by a single footnote reference number, the optional column could easily accommodate two or three footnote refs without increasing its width. Does anyone have any serious objections or suggestions? If not, I will post a link to this discussion to the WP:CFB and WP:CBB talk pages. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:41, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

• I'm not sure why such a column would be needed or desired. Typically, a season schedule and results chart can be sourced in its entirety with a single source (e.g., College Football Data Warehouse, or SR/College Football) without the need for a "ref" line for each game. More detailed game accounts should be sourced in a "Season summary" or "Game notes" section. I also favor keeping the schedule charts lean so as to avoid bleeding into the conference results templates that are on most team/season articles. Cbl62 (talk) 20:24, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

• @Cbl62: The reason is simple, Cbl: as we have added more and more datapoints to these tables, most of the individual game datapoints are no longer single sourced. The date, opponent, score, and city of venue are usually available in the team's media guide. Attendance, conference games, stadium names, television coverage, and several other optional datapoints are often not covered by the team media guide, and sources vary from game to game within a given season. For instance, neither CFDW nor SR/CFB include attendance for current years, CFDW never includes television coverage, and SR/CFB is not reliable on point for older games. Neither CFDW nor SR/CFB include stadium names, and SR/CFB does not include the city where the game was played, either. While I agree with you that we should use a single reference outside and immediately underneath the table whenever possible, that is increasingly unrealistic as we add more and more game details to the tables -- and especially when the datapoints and sources are game-specific. Please think about it. No rush. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:45, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. I really don't like the idea of adding yet another column to the schedule tables which IMO have too much info as it is. CFDW and SR/CFB can be cited for the table as a whole and cover the core information: date, opponent, winner, score, location, and, yes, even the conference status of each opponent. See typical SR/CFB layout here and corresponding CFDW layout for the same season here). If we're going to add line-by-line references for these datapoints, plus references for television coverage, homecoming, time, stadium name, attendance, rank, opponent rank, game name, etc., the reference column would have four, five, or maybe more references. If you build a mockup, with references for each of these datapoints, I think you will find that it is going to take up more display space than you think. And, as Jweiss notes below, more detailed game sourcing can be built into the narrative text without cluttering/bloating the schedule table. Cbl62 (talk) 03:24, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

• Yup. Huge amounts of space. There's your extreme five-ref mock-up. Here's your more likely two-ref mock-up, including media guide and morning-after newspaper account: Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:53, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

References

• Not sure if you're being sarcastic or not. I'll assume not and so it appears then that we agree, it takes up way too much space. Cbl62 (talk) 04:38, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

• Sarcasm, Cbl. The 2- or 3-ref mock-ups take up 1/4 to 3/8 of an inch, and I could cut that out of the table now by removing unnecessary optional elements like "at" and "vs." -- as I have already done for all of the Gators articles. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:43, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

• Less sarcasm, please. You do use it a bit much, and it often comes across as condescending and unpleasant ... and, perhaps most importantly, not persuasive. In any event, I respectfully disagree that you would typically be able to reference all the datapoints with two refs. Should you want to test your hypothesis, you could create a mockup of, for example, 1997 Wisconsin Badgers football team#Schedule, with line-by-line refs supporting each datapoint and see how it looks and spaces out. Cbl62 (talk) 05:08, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

• ESPN has complete game summaries for all Division I-A/FBS teams from 2002 through the present. Here's one for the 2002 Wisconsin Badgers: [1]. Between the AP recap and ESPN box score subpages, all of the major datapoints from our season schedule and results tables are included, except attendance. For later seasons, attendance is included. Admittedly, before 2000 or so, finding similar coverage is going to be somewhat more challenging, but with the assistance of morning-after AP box scores from Newspapers.com, Newsarchive.com and Google News Archive plus the other online references you mention above, most if not all of the data can be reconstructed with only two or three references, as I suggested above. And far from being a hindrance to later article build-out, having good single-game references already built into the article will make it far easier for later editors to add quality referenced text to the article. If you are concerned about table width, we could start by removing low-value options like game times, network TV coverage (almost non-existent before 1970), and the redundant "at" and "vs.", and moving rivalry games names to the built-out text or, in the absence of significant text, to the "see also" section. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:59, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

• I certainly would support eliminating the TV coverage column and probably game time as well. But I don't want to take one step forward and one step back. I favor streamlining the schedule tables. Cbl62 (talk) 03:41, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

• Neutral. I think WP:V is desirable, and I understand the rationale for having individual refs. It doesn't appear that the ref column will add any substantial space to the template either. I don't necessarily think it's needed though. It's just a personal preference, but I don't have a strong opinion either way. Jrcla2 (talk) 23:17, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Any date that needs sourcing in a schedule table should be discussed somewhere in the body of the article and sourced there. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:16, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

@Jweiss11: The problem with that theory, of course, is that the score and opponent are usually the only schedule datapoints mentioned in the text, and they may or may not be sourced to a footnoted reference in a majority of our season articles. Among other problems, it's a violation of WP:V, and it's an invitation to difficult-to-fix vandalism. I see this all the time with unsourced stats tables for athletes; some IP thinks it's funny to scramble the numbers over time, and in the absence of footnoted references, there is no quick and easy for editors to correct the data, and no easy way for our readers to verify the accuracy of many of the individual datapoints. The alternative is to footnote individual data fields, but I really do not want to go there. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:26, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I'd rather live with all those problems, which can all be addressed simply by article expansion, than have a new problem of systemic table bloat. If something is in violation of WP:V and it bothers you, expand the article and source the body text. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:43, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Again, it's a good theory, but neither of us has the time to expand several thousand stub articles in the manner you suggest. The overwhelming majority of our season articles exist as one-, two-, and three-sentence stubs. Calculate the hours to properly build out a single season with sourced text and footnotes (Cbl needed 10 or 12 hours to do a respectable job with the '66 Gators, and he's probably as efficient or more so than any of us), multiply that by the number of existing season stubs, and then divide by the half dozen editors we have who are capable of writing the text you suggest. I've done the math; I think you will be shocked by the man hours required to do what you suggest. In the meantime and for the foreseeable future, none of that data is sourced in most of our articles. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:01, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Any time spent sourcing the tables is time that could have been spent expanding the articles. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:02, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Except it would take about 20 minutes to add 3, 4, 5, 6 footnotes to properly source most single-season tables. That time to properly build out the text of our articles is measured in hours (perhaps days in some case), not minutes, JW. And no one is suggesting that this should be mandatory, only that it should be an available option within the template. The "bloat" you mention would be roughly an extra quarter inch on the righthand side if the optional parameter is invoked. Do you really believe that we don't "have room" for a quarter-inch optional column for footnote reference numbers? If everyone is adamantly opposed among the opinion leaders here, there is a work-around for this: simply adding the footnote reference numbers to the final data column. And that requires no further WP:CFB discussion, and can be sorted by article-level consensus. WP:V is one of the 5 pillars, JW; we should at least periodically genuflect in its direction. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:17, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support adding a column to the table to insert a single, box score-type reference for each game, with the understanding that this is an optional parameter that will only appear if invoked in the code (like the way it's done with attendance right now). 95% of our season articles are nothing more than a schedule table and a couple lines of introductory text, so saying things like, "expand the articles" is just not realistic - it's not going to happen in most cases, and, as DL has noted, most of these articles really do need to be better referenced, and this is a potential quick, easy, and relatively painless way to do it. Ejgreen77 (talk) 22:45, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

• @Ejgreen77: For example, you mean like this single online after-game report from AP and ESPN that includes (1) date, (2) time, (3) opponent, (4) AP rankings for both teams, (5) stadium, (6) city and state, (7) score (& boxscore with game stats), (8) attendance, (9) major network coverage, and (10) written AP game summary? Obviously, such detailed online reports are not going to exist for most games before the late 1990s, but they are available for most of the last 15 to 20 seasons. For 2000 and before, a combination of any one of the (a) team's media guide, Sports-Reference.com/College Football season schedule, or College Football Data Warehouse's season schedule, plus (b) a morning-after newspaper article from Newspapers.com or Google News Archive, would provide most, if not all of the same information. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:59, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

• Under no circumstances does it make sense to add CFDW or SR/College Football or media guides as line-by-line refs. Those season summary refs can be cited once for the whole chart without citing them line by line and bloating the horizontal spread of the chart. Cbl62 (talk) 03:45, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

• @Dirtlawyer1: Yes, that's exactly what I'm talking about. And, you're right this can basically be done right now (like this). But, my support is conditional on this only being used to add 1 reference per game to the table. Other references can, of course, be added elsewhere in the article text. And if there isn't 1 single ESPN-style reference available for older seasons, all I can say is, pick the single best reference that is available, and go with it. And I agree with Cbl62 that things like CFDW can be cited once at the end of the table for the entire table. No need for that type of stuff to be done line-to-line. Ejgreen77 (talk) 16:01, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

• @Ejgreen77: You mean like the "Primary source" citation under the schedule and results table in this example: 1966 Florida Gators football team#Schedule and results? I agree with both of you that there is no need to have line-by-line citations for sources that apply to the entire table. We should, however, provide citations to one or more of those generally applicable references (e.g., media guide, CFDW, SR/CFB) in close proximity to the table if those are what was relied upon. As you can see from this example and others, individual editors are already using improvised work-arounds to properly source game-specific data. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:08, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

• @Dirtlawyer1: Yes, I would consider both the Florida & Michigan examples acceptable sourcing for results tables. I just don't want to see, hypothetically speaking, more than 1 reference inserted at the end of each line of the Michigan table. It's overkill, and, frankly, it would look kind of goofy. Ejgreen77 (talk) 17:26, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Edit war of "No." vs. "#" needs to be resolved

Over the past month or so, there have been repeated reversions of edits involving "No." vs. "#" for displaying rankings. While most users seem to be preferring, "No." per MOS:NUMBERSIGN, several still seem to want "#". I understand why people may want an exception here, as "No." is very rarely used colloquially in the college football community while "#" is commonly used. I am not particularly experienced in disputes such as these, so I really do not know what to suggest, but I do think that the constant reversions of this template need to stop and the dispute be resolved. Hydra88 (talk) 22:25, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Vacated losses

I don't believe there is any way to show a vacated loss (such as USC in 2005) at the moment. Should this be added? Embowaf (talk) 20:09, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't think vacated losses are a thing. I believe the 2005 USC Trojans football team page is incorrect. When I read the NCAA sanctions for USC, I didn't see anything about them vacating the loss in their record. I might be wrong on this, but I am pretty confident. Hydra88 (talk) 19:55, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

CFP Rankings

After week 9, the CFP rankings should supersede AP Eccekevin (talk) 16:50, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 31 October 2018

1896 LSU Tigers football team has 2 rivalry games in the {{CFB schedule entry}} template that are not displaying (October 24 Battle for the Rag and November 13 Magnolia Bowl). It appears to be because the stadium field is empty. Setting stadium to a non-breaking space for those entries makes the gamename show up, but still includes the dot separator. Is there a way to make the gamename appear without the dot separator, and without a specified stadium? Or was this requirement by design? Hoof Hearted (talk) 17:36, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

This only appears to be an issue when the template is nested in the (depricated?) {{CFB schedule}} template. Using it with a stand-alone {{CFB Schedule Start}} doesn't require a stadium, as was done for 1896 Tulane Olive and Blue football team. Is the solution to convert to the non-nested style? Hoof Hearted (talk) 18:02, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Hoof Hearted, fixed, next time you can ping me (or ask me directly), since I don't always see threads on this page. Frietjes (talk) 19:18, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

1896 LSU Tigers football team uses |stadium= & |cityst= while the template defines |site_stadium= & |site_cityst=. How is it working at all???? Cabayi (talk) 19:26, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Cabayi, the template was pointing to the wrong doc page. I fixed it. Frietjes (talk) 19:30, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Much appreciated Frietjes, I was afraid I've been bothering you too much already! Hoof Hearted (talk) 19:48, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Overtime

@Frietjes: Is there a parameter at {{CFB schedule entry}} to note overtime games, like we had with the {{CFB Schedule Entry}} template, or do we need to manually superscript this notation as was done here? Most games, by far, end in regulation time, so I can understand simplifying the template code to omit it. But I thought I'd take advantage of an "OT" parameter if it's there. Hoof Hearted (talk) 15:30, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Hoof Hearted, the sup tag works, but, you can also use this syntax. Frietjes (talk) 15:41, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 8 December 2020

Can we add a "status" option to gray out canceled games, such as on Template:CBB schedule entry. Lsw2472 (talk) 00:03, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please make your requested changes to the template's sandbox first; see WP:TESTCASES. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:47, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

College GameDay

Where is the best place to note that College GameDay came to the site of a game? It's currently in the name field, but then that field is doing double duty (as in the 1 Oct 2022 Clemson game, which is named "Textile Bowl/College GameDay"). Is it more appropriately listed in the TV column? Should a symbol be added in the TV column with an explanatory note below the table (or as hover text)? —C.Fred (talk) 21:40, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Just as a minor note for anyone checking this, the parameter in question is |gamename=, which does seem to be pulling double duty since College Gameday isn't really the "name of the game" (see the Tigers page as mentioned for this). I could see a |gameday=yes parameter being added that would put an explanatory note linked from the TV column. Primefac (talk) 08:55, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Nitpick about times

1. Should the same guidance from {{CBB schedule entry}} to "NOT list all possible [start] times" be extended to this CFB template? This would keep the time column from ballooning too wide or even wrapping with a really long text string of unimportant information.
2. I noticed the examples in this documentation display p.m. in 3 different ways ("p.m.", "PM", and "pm"). Is there a preferred syntax, or at least one we want to standardize on? MOS:TIME recommends lowercase, but allows both with and without periods.

Hoof Hearted (talk) 12:38, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

For the second question, there should be; my bot seems to have missed Example 2 when it last run, but I'll see why and re-run the task (which needs a re-run anyway since it's been a couple of years). I'm not really sure what you mean for your first question, an example or two might help. Primefac (talk) 14:21, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

2023 Purdue Boilermakers football team has some mid-season games with several alternate times. I've seen this is many articles early in the season, including Iowa and Wisconsin. To be fair, the schedule sources list these alternate times, but I just don't think it's encyclopedic until a single time has been determined/played. Hoof Hearted (talk) 17:55, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

So they schedule a game for a specific day but not a specific time? That's... rather odd. I do agree that we are not a directory, and our tables should have the time the game is (or was, retroactively) played, not what time(s) it might be played. Primefac (talk) 19:11, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

This is a fairly common tactic as television networks try to maximize the viewing audience based on the most dramatic games as the season unfolds. Usually times are determined 2-3 weeks ahead of time, but yes, I see no point in blowing up the nice compact table for what-if scenarios 2 months away. I'll wait for a few more opinions before changing the documentation. Hoof Hearted (talk) 19:28, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Just as a teeny tiny little side note, the word is nitpick. Primefac (talk) 19:16, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Not sure how that escaped my attention, but I knew that! :-) Corrected! Hoof Hearted (talk) 19:28, 30 August 2023 (UTC)