Template talk:Infobox Canadian Football League biography/Archive 1

NFL Project
Further discussion available at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Football_League. --Arcadian 22:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Name?
Maybe it is just me, but wouldn't it make sense for a person infobox to include,say, the person's name?? Circeus 15:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * We can add it if you like. Personally, I think the convention of repeating the name (or film title, etc.) in infoboxes is a waste of space, since the box always appear at the top of the article where the person's name already appears in big or bold text at least twice (e.g. Bill Clinton). ×Meegs 16:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, the point of an infobox is to provide some basic information about the topic in a structured way, right? When i see an infobox,I expect that glancing at it will tell me what the article's about. Circeus 19:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Team Color
Can we make the gray box that says Teams, any color for players that are currently playing like Nick Barnett green for the Packers? Thanks --Phbasketball6 00:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Personally, I strongly dislike the idea for aesthetic reasons. On a practical note, I suspect that some team colors are too dark to sufficiently contrast the black text. If it were done, white text, as we have on on Template:Infobox MLB player, would probably be the only way to do.  If you want to pursue this, I suggest posting a topic to WP:NFL. ×Meegs 23:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

College Football HoF too?
Would it be possible to make a orange cell for members of the College Football Hall of Fame in the same manner as the Pro Football HoF? I always find it interesting who was one, but not the other, and who was both. Any thoughts? Who knows how to do this? —Xanderer 04:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. -- MECU ≈ talk 15:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * YES! YOU ARE THE MAN! If you want something done, ask a Marine —Xanderer 17:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Caption?
Could somebody better with templates than I add an optional "image caption" parameter? Danke... &mdash;Chowbok 18:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Records Format
I have seen the records item displayed a few ways. The most common way (from viewing maybe 3 other players) is the following: Team Name RECORD TITLE (NUMBER) Team Name RECORD TITLE #2 (NUMBER #2)

This causes the infobox to widen in most casesand causes unnecessary repetition of team names. I would like top propose the adoption of the following:

Team Name RECORD TITLE (NUMBER) RECORD TITLE #2 (NUMBER #2)

I have used Chris Cooley as an example of my newly proposed format. You can check Walter Payton for the other style and Barry Sanders for yet another! I'd just like to see this standardized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iammike (talk • contribs) 18:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Size
Does this infobox really need to take up the entire screen? It's huge! It's much, much larger than other projects' infoboxes. The infoboxes for mountains, dinosaurs, and countries all sit to the right of the text, not above it. Why on Earth does this need to be this big? Also, on a somewhat related note, what's up with that neon green and orange? The colors, combined with the size, really make this a distracting addition to articles. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 16:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Where are you seeing the template behave like this? As far as I can tell it appears in the upper right like most other templates. (examples: Warren Moon, Bronko Nagurski, Tony Dorsett) And I'n not seeing neon green either. Please point me in the the direction of what you are seeing. —Xanderer 16:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Peyton Manning is where I first noticed it. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 20:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, it looks like you've fixed it since I commented. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 20:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * This version is what I saw when I went to revert vandalism to Peyton Manning's article. At first I thought the vandalism had caused it, but then I noticed that it was the template, not the article. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 20:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Broken
This template seems broken. Can someone else check it and fix it? --Guinnog 09:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Fixed; → A z a  Toth 17:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The DatabaseFootball parameter still is not working.--BillFlis 12:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Problem
Something's up with this template at Rod Smart (it's adding a --> at the beginning of the article in addition to including the template), but I can't figure out what. The problem's been there for quite some time it appears from the history. Would someone mind taking a look? -Elmer Clark 03:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Height and weight
I'd like to see something added as to where the height and weight could be added to the infobox. --Zimbabweed 14:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Me, too. --Bender235 03:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Just did it. --Bender235 03:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --Zimbabweed 18:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Undrafted
If one enters only a DraftedYear but no DraftedRound, the template should display "NFL Draft undrafted". Can someone program this? --Bender235 17:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

ImageWidth parameter even work?
Am I just stupid or is it not working? I want Ronde Barber to be 100px, not 200px! --Jemijohn 20:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I fixed the Image Width so your able to ajust the size. --Phbasketball6 22:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It's not working. I don't know what's wrong but Ronnie Lott's pic which I uploaded needs to be made smaller, as it's pixelated. Quadzilla99 19:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah it is, you were just using the wrong parameter name. It's ImageWidth :) ×Meegs 20:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Infobox proposal

 * Comment I took it out of the Taylor infobox, so I altered these comments. Quadzilla99 04:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The current infobox can't display the New York Giants red color (their second most prominent color) because it makes the template unreadable. Currently red is left out entirely making the template bland and worse inaccurate. See Lawrence Taylor. The MLB box incorporates other colors on some levels, see Mark Prior and Francisco Liriano and look infinitely better. I would propose changing the template to allow the same option. Quadzilla99 14:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The current system also creates a problem for Tampa Bay Buccaneers players infoboxes concerning readability, see Ronde Barber and Jermaine Phillips the Stats line of the infobox could be the secondary color, much like the MLB debut is on the MLB infobox is. This would make the teams' two main colors appear on the infobox and the font could then be white (which every uniform uses in the NFL), which would make the teamplate readable and accurate. Quadzilla99 14:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I really can't see how this would be done. The amount of header bars vary depending on the person. Compare almighty P. J. Pope to Brett Favre. Would you alternate lines? I'm not even sure if it'd look better for some teams. I can see for the Giants it looking nice, but what about the Packers? Is this how it would look? Maybe an option of being able to edit the second header bar (whatever section that may be) would be nice for some teams, but I think most of the teams right now look fine where they are right now.++ aviper2k7 ++ 23:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well there's supposed to be at least a stats and teams section always isn't there? Even for rookies I think you put the cbs stats thing in there in stats header (I think like it is on Tiki Barber and L.T.) . The stats header could be the alternate color or perhaps whatever comes second (sometimes there is a career highlight section). Granted it's not a problem for The Packers because their infobox look fine but the Bucs and Giants are another case (the Bucs is near unreadable and the Giants doesn't include blue—Imagine a Packers template with just Green and White). Maybe it could be a secondary option for teams like the Bucs and Giants. Quadzilla99 00:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * About the Favre example the font would alwaye be white I would believe. As for a tally of the teams, currently the Browns leave out orange which is their primary helmet color, the Giants and Bills leave out red and blue respectively, the Texans leave out red, the Dolphins leave out Orange, and the Chiefs leave out yellow. None of those teams have white as their secondary colors to my view (The Colts, Jets, Eagles, and Cardinals probably would have white as their second most prominent color). Also the Bucs template is near unreadable. Quadzilla99 00:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This would be fine as it wouldn't be necessary on most of the player bio pages, just the teams with two contrasting colors. The Texans are a case also. An extra option should be set up and it would overwrite the Stat or Highlights colors. I'm not sure if I am capable of this, however.++ aviper2k7 ++ 00:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Incidentally it might not look too bad for the Packers, see how Barry Zito used to look, the A's have similar colors: Quadzilla99 01:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Offical team hex colors DO exist, why fake 'em?
You may or may not be aware, each of these teams follows a very strict "corporate identity" manual which dictates every minute detail of how the team's logos and colors should appear in every conceivable situation. (CMYK printing, spot-color printing, silkscreen, textile dyes, plastics, on the internet…) For example the official "for web use" colors of the Washington Redskins are:
 * {| class="wikitable"

It might be worth persuing with the public relations or media relations department from each team. Or not. ►xanderer 05:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Official Washington Redskins web colors || #7D0008 || #FFBE26 || Player Name
 * as opposed to the colors above || #900020 || #ED9121 || Player Name
 * }
 * as opposed to the colors above || #900020 || #ED9121 || Player Name
 * }
 * That looks alot better also. I'm going around all the Redskins to try to update them.++ aviper2k7 ++ 06:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Phew done. That would've been alot easier at the end of preseason. All current roster Redskins now have the color you listed.++ aviper2k7 ++ 06:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks aviper2k7, can you please get the Cleveland Browns, Carolina Panthers, Houston Texans New York Giants, and Atlanta Falcons official colors too, (you can show me the colors and I will change it for the players infoboxes so you don't have to waste time. Thanks --Phbasketball6 18:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't even know where to find it. I found the Packers colors in their FAQ and some teams don't even have an FAQ, let alone their colors mentioned. I couldn't even find where xanderer got those colors.++ aviper2k7 ++ 19:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I've found what I consider to be very accurate colors that I've been using to represent the Cleveland Browns: #321414 (seal brown) and #FF7F00 (burnt orange). Seal brown is used for backgrounds and burnt orange is used for fonts (the two are reversed where applicable). Seal brown does look very similar to black, but for consistency, I feel it should be used. Examples can be found here:  etc, etc. Wlmaltby3 06:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Consensus? Not yet drafted
I've noticed the NFL player infobox appearing on a lot of college players who are eligible for the upcoming draft, along with predictions of their draft position. (Examples: Greg Olsen, Mason Crosby, Aaron Rouse, Aaron Ross, Jon Beason...) Additionally the "NFL Draft" field are being filled in with 2007, Round TBD. I feel strongly that the infobox shouldn't appear until the player is drafted and signed. Although these players will not doubt be drafted in a few weeks, this is not a certainty. Just ask fans of Len Bias. But I wanted to gauge everyone else's opinions before acting. Thoughts? — ►xanderer  01:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree xanderer, that's a bad idea that needs to be nuked. Quadzilla99 02:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I see no reason why the infobox can't be there, but the draft round and such should be left out completely.++ aviper2k7 ++ 03:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with aviper.↔NMajdan &bull;talk 16:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The NFL player infobox should appear on every player who's eligible for the current NFL Draft. --Bender235 13:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Does the fact that they're not yet NFL players matter for anything? I mean if people need something to do they can clean up or expand any of the countless articles out there needing work. Quadzilla99 13:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Also creates a large unecessary gray area for fringe prospects. I don't like this at all—of course I've already said that. Quadzilla99 13:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I realize this whole debate will be moot in a week, but there's something about this that scares me. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, and therefore contain accurate, precise information. The fact is: these players are not NFL players until they sign a contract. If I had a job interview at NASA tomorrow, does that entitle me to slap the Astronaut Infobox on my user page? Of course not. — x a n d e r </b><b style="color:#003399">e </b><b style="color:#000000">r </b> 03:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Retired players
In an effort to improve the general quality of the Rutgers football coverage on Wikipedia, I have recently been doing a few things, including creating articles for former Scarlet Knights who played in the NFL and editing pre-existing ones. One of the changes I made was to add this template to pages that lacked it, as well as giving each infobox the team colors as none of the players are in the NFL anymore. I just found out that Phbasketball6 reverted my edits, however there is no policy against what I did, and I think the color schemes are appropriate as the articles are most likely to be of more interest for the players' college careers. 204.52.215.115
 * Personally, I dislike the use of any team colors in the infobox, but that's just my opinion. What you need to do, 204, is to contact Phbasketball6, and politely ask why they have been reverting your edits; it may not be for the reason that you think. Both of you could stand to improve your edit summaries, too. ×Meegs 08:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the commonly-agreed-upon-but-not-official-policy is that the infoboxes may display team colors whilst the player is on the active roster of an NFL team, but revert back to LightSteelBlue with black type once the player has retired. I've been operating under this assumption and am pretty sure Phbasketball6 is as well. — xanderer  🇺🇸 15:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Xanderer is right. "LightSteelBlue" and "Black" for retired players. --Bender235 17:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Color should be on all retired football players considering the LightSteelBlue and Black is just ugly--Bucs10 03:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)Bucs10
 * We only use colors to show what team an active player is playing for. We don't need it for retired players. —Bender235 12:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * No only for the active When I enable the colors for the NFL Template at first I wanted only active players to have the colors. Then after a while I then thought that the colors should be for retired players on the team that they where more notable on in their career. But now when I'm starting to see that people are putting the players college colors in and their last team that they were with, like Deion Sanders with the Ravens colors and Bill Romanowski with the Raiders colors when they didn't do much on those teams. Now after seeing those changes, and people have decisions like those, I change my mind, only present players and coaches should have the colors. Sorry for any confussion on my decision for the past two months. --Phbasketball6 21:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * What is the point of not having any colors, it looks like crap without color--Bucs10 22:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)Bucs10
 * "Looks like crap" and "is appropriate for an encyclopedia" aren't one in the same. It's not our job to build a website that appeals to fans of retired NFL players or that's necessarily the most visually stunning or appealing, it's our job to represent information in a consistent and encyclopedic manner. Since the entire class of "retired NFL players" includes at least one (for the sake of discussion) "exception" to the rule that all NFL players can be identified to exactly one NFL team, we cannot use that rule to determine the visual style for an infobox. (Not to mention what looks like crap to one user may look great to another.) — PSUMark2006   talk  |  contribs  22:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Precisely —xanderer 03:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * well whatever i am leaving the color on the pages i started--Bucs10 00:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Bucs10


 * I think the team colors look nicer than the default steel color. Some players retire primarily with one team like Terry Bradshaw and Bart Starr. Even players like Joe Montana spent a great majority of their careers with the 49ers and should keep the 49er color to illustrate what team he played for. It'd be silly to think of him as a great Chiefs player. But that's as far as I'd go. I don't see any need to change it for these cases, but for players like Woodson, White, and Sanders: leave it the default.++ aviper2k7 ++ 18:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you aviper2k7, but the thing is that someone (like a newbie) will look at the color for Joe Montana's box and then have the idea to put the color in all of the retired players infobox. --Phbasketball6 20:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * People will probably put colors on the template anyways. It's going to be a struggle either way, but I think most people will understand that a person with multiple teams should be left with the default color.++ aviper2k7 ++ 18:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be for players who played for one team for there entire career or, players who spent most of there career for a team, or the team they had the most success. For the Players who were not that good and played for like 5 teams, then they shouldnt have color. Like guys like Bertrand Berry shouldn't have color when they retire, but players like Simeon Rice should.--Tex123 23:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Tex123
 * Yeah, all those lousy five-team players like Deion Sanders, Wilber Marshall, and Eric Metcalf. ►xanderer  19:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I think players who were notable (i.e. pro bowlers) should have color. I originally had it as last team they played for, but I now believe it should be team they were best known for. But YES, colors should be in the boxes. Crazy Canadian 17:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't make sense when the retired baseball players infoboxes have colors, but the football players don't.--Bucs10 02:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)Bucs10
 * Hmmm. It doesn't seem like "because someone else did it" is a good reason. (Anna Nicole Smith injected HGH into her buttocks, but that doesn't mean we all should.) Frankly the retired baseball players infoboxes are a disaster too. (Can anyone say D. J. Dozier?) Slurpeeman 03:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Poll
Team colors for retired players? Please vote. (ends on April 10. 2007)

'''Poll closed. The result was to use  and   for retired players.'''

Yes (team colors for retired players)
 * 1) - Bucs10 22:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) — Footballfan1 00:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 3)  (only for real obvious examples like Bart Starr and Terry Bradshaw) — ++ aviper2k7 ++ 18:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) - ChrisJNelson (for guys remembered for one team over the others, definitely)Chris Nelson 22:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) - Tex123 23:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) -   ShadowJester07  ►Talk  22:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Soxrock 23:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

No ( and   for retired players)
 * 1) — Bender235 14:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) — (I cite the Reggie White paradox.)  xanderer   14:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) —  PSUMark2006   talk  |  contribs  14:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) — Pepto gecko 21:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) — Phbasketball6 21:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) — –King Bee (&tau; • &gamma;) 19:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) - No except a handful of obvious ones-- Wizardman  01:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) — The color pattern is so inaccurate (see my comments below) I'm changing my vote until that's addressed. I'd rather not have it on any templates than have it highly inaccurate on 1/3 of third of them. Quadzilla99 04:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) — ↔<span style="font-size:11px; font-weight:bold; font-family:verdana, sans-serif;">NMajdan &bull;<span style="font-size:9px; font-family:verdana, sans-serif; color:#000000;">talk  16:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) —Ugh. There's no way to be consistent. Since each instance would involve a judgement call, it shouldn't be attempted. Besides wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not MySpace. C'mon. Slurpeeman 03:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The poll was only 10-7, since there are new people editing, there should be a revisit of this. . . the steel blue looks like the old 8088 computer days of cyan. . . besides, why should Hall of Fame players be a steel blue and cruddy players ALSO be steel blue. . . makes no sense. . . the vote was too close and had only 17 voters. Not enough. I'd have liked to been able to vote, so would another newly signed up person. . . also remember who is reading. . . often non football fans. They will see current players with color and others essentially without colors. How will they know the difference? Either have full use of colors or none at all like NBA players.
 * I don't like the colors for the reasons stated, but I also thought it may have been a little early to close it. If no one responds I'll re-open it tomorrow. Quadzilla99 03:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Colors to agree upon
Okay it'd be nice to agree on colors now because I see colors changing over and over again. The only one that I changed completely was atlanta, where I inverted the black and red because the black text on a red background looked painful.

So lets talk about any that need changing and if none need changing, lets start enforcing the same color.++ aviper2k7 ++ 20:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * See my comments above. Quadzilla99 21:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Just a thought - what would be the possibility of adding some sort of parameter to the infobox that would apply the correct colors based on the team that is specified? Similar to, I suppose, what's done with Category:Party colours templates. — PSUMark2006   talk  |  contribs  00:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Incidentally the example used for the Houston Texans is inaccurate. It's Mario Williams and it doesn't match the color sample. Quadzilla99 00:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * PSU, would anyone be capable of doing this? That would be an ideal idea (lol). And the Texans are a team I saw with about ten different colors. Which color should we use?++ aviper2k7 ++ 00:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think I have an idea of how it could be done. I'm away today and tomorrow for a job interview but I'll try to work on something over the weekend. The Texans' colors that you have above look good to me, except that they're pretty close to the Giants'. If what I have in mind works out, we would have one set of colors that could be used across all team-related templates, including navboxes. I'll get back to you when I'm back on campus and can work on this. — PSUMark2006   talk  |  contribs  01:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * check this out

Template:Infobox American Political Party Template:Green Party (United States)/meta/color

| colspan="2" bgcolor=""|

Okay we might be able to do this if we set up a parameter something simple like Team and then " But the problem with this is that there's only one color. I'm sure this could be worked around. Something similar has been done so it shouldn't be too impossible++ aviper2k7 ++ 01:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that the font color for the Eagles could be silver, the panthers should be revearsed the black should be the font color and blue outer, Falcons should have black font color and red outer. The 49ers won't work out because it looks like the Redskins color. The Bills won't work out either red and then just white? The Texans and Giants aren't working either, too much confusing for both. --Phbasketball6 03:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The Texans color should be |Color=#333333   |fontcolor=#cc3333 The Cowboys color should be the one Tony Romo has. The 49ers color should be revearsed. Thanks (From the one who activated the colors for the infobox in the first place) --Phbasketball6 03:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The cowboys cant be the same color as the Patriots--Bucs10 02:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)Bucs10
 * Really, like I said above as long as you stick to the two color system the whole thing is going to be inaccurate or unreadable for around 1/3 of the teams (see my comments above). The MLB system as I pointed out above is light years ahead. Quadzilla99 04:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Its a simple (yet long) switch statement. I can take a stab at it if nobody has started yet.↔<span style="font-size:11px; font-weight:bold; font-family:verdana, sans-serif;">NMajdan &bull;<span style="font-size:9px; font-family:verdana, sans-serif; color:#000000;">talk 16:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC) (re-set margin) Are you guys talking about what I was asking? I mean making an option where the next level could be a different color? Because if you are that would be much appreciated. Quadzilla99 17:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm slowly starting to piece it together. Hopefully by Sunday night as I'll be home for Easter this weekend. In addition to the switch statement it'll require separate meta templates for every team's colors. Will update as I progress in the next few days. — PSUMark2006   talk  |  contribs  16:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I've got a working example up at User:Nmajdan/Test. It wasn't quite as easy as I thought but I got it working. Sorry, I didn't really wait for any responses before taking a stab at it myself.↔<span style="font-size:11px; font-weight:bold; font-family:verdana, sans-serif;">NMajdan &bull;<span style="font-size:9px; font-family:verdana, sans-serif; color:#000000;">talk 16:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem...That looks feasible. The advantage of having something like Template:Buffalo Bills/meta/color and so on is that (a) you won't have to parse a 32-part switch statement and (b) it can be used on team-specific navigation templates without having to specify any unnecessary parameters. That's the direction I was going with it, anyway. — PSUMark2006   talk  |  contribs  16:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think parsing one long switch statement has a very negligible impact on load time. Now, if this was a template that was used multiple times on one single page, then I would agree. I just don't see the need in created 32 single-use meta templates for this. Then again, I do see your reason for the use on team-specific navigation templates but those are already created and have the colors defined. I don't care which way we go either so I'll halt my development until we get a consensus on which way to go. So, we have two ideas that both work. Any other comments?↔<span style="font-size:11px; font-weight:bold; font-family:verdana, sans-serif;">NMajdan &bull;<span style="font-size:9px; font-family:verdana, sans-serif; color:#000000;">talk 16:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * One comment before I shut up and actually get to work on this :) While the team-specific templates are already done, there's no harm in developing a style standard that can be reapplied to them even now. One of the concerns mentioned elsewhere on this page is the inconsistency among team colors used throughout WP, so this would (hopefully) solve that. — PSUMark2006   talk  |  contribs  17:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * How are you going to handle background colors and font colors?↔<span style="font-size:11px; font-weight:bold; font-family:verdana, sans-serif;">NMajdan &bull;<span style="font-size:9px; font-family:verdana, sans-serif; color:#000000;">talk 17:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * What do you mean the next level could be a different color?↔<span style="font-size:11px; font-weight:bold; font-family:verdana, sans-serif;">NMajdan &bull;<span style="font-size:9px; font-family:verdana, sans-serif; color:#000000;">talk 17:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

A possible solution

 * See and  for what I've got put together so far. I'm having problems forcing the infobox to default to the LightSteelBlue when no team is specified. I'll follow up later but comments welcome. —  PSUMark2006   talk  |  contribs  17:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I tried something on your template to see if it resolved your issue? Did it? If not, then revert my edit.↔<span style="font-size:11px; font-weight:bold; font-family:verdana, sans-serif;">NMajdan &bull;<span style="font-size:9px; font-family:verdana, sans-serif; color:#000000;">talk 17:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It did resolve the issue for the first row, but I can't figure out how to apply that to the others since those rows themselves are called by parser functions and I think that's screwing something up. — PSUMark2006   talk  |  contribs  17:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, you can see the thread above this to see what I was talking about. Oh well. Quadzilla99 17:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it may be working now; I was calling the wrong template and that's why the coloring issue wasn't working. I'll leave this in my namespace for a while to get some feedback from others before I start mass-moving the meta templates to the template namespace and updating the NFL infobox. Since all we're adding is a new param this won't "break" any existing transclusions of the infobox but it will remove any coloring that was added using the old params. Thoughts? — PSUMark2006   talk  |  contribs  18:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you're referring to, what I was referring to is in the infobox proposal thread I started above. If you're not referring to that don't worry about it. Quadzilla99 03:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * PSU, great job! We should start implementing this soon (before the draft) so the constant color editing will stop and we will have a more uniform style. Is there a chance to get a bot to edit all these for us?++ aviper2k7 ++ 05:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm ready to implement my proposed changes above into the actual template but am concerned that doing so will revert all of the previously-added colors to the default colors until someone goes through and manually adds the team designation. If no one has any major issues with that, we can go ahead and make the change. — PSUMark2006   talk  |  contribs  13:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Honor Positioning
Non-editor friend of mine has been bugging me about the positioning of the HOF mention. She feels quite strongly that, as it's pretty much as high an honor as a player can achieve, that it should have greater prominence; she pointed out a couple of cases where the stat box is sufficiently long, particularly when a photo is involved, that the HOF mention is not visible when you first look at the page, requiring a bit of scrolling (although, as I pointed out to her, with little success, there is usually a HOF mention in the opening text to the article). I can kinda see her point, though - the HOF is, obviously, a big deal, so it seems that it should have a degree of greater prominence than being right at the bottom. The vast majority of players have a "Career Highlights" section - at the top of that would seem like a logical alternative; granted, the HOF only comes after retirement, but other post-retirement honors are mentioned in that section as well. --Tailkinker 22:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Colors on player pages 2 (Obligatory section break)
At first I was a fan of the team colors on retired player pages (as indicated by the poll) but no I'm starting to believe that too often it will be a judgment call that needs to just be avoided. Maybe it's easy to figure out what to do when a guy was on one team his whole career, but this isn't alway the case and it will become much less frequent as time goes on. I think there are too many directions to go in with the colors somethings, and I think consistent is best so I say we just leave them all the same.Chris Nelson 05:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

lets take another look. many of the older retired players played the majority of their career with one team. The new players are the ones playing with varios teams. Some guys are playing with 3 or 4 teams, and these are the stars. Perhaps the plain look should be for current players since there will be more "judgment calls" with the newer guys, anyway, there are new posters all the time, they sould get their fair say Jturney 19:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If someone wants re-open it go ahead. I would suggest notifiyng the voters in case the ruling changes. Quadzilla99 20:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, I notified everyone let's see what they say. Quadzilla99 22:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I am thinking that players should have the colors only if they spent there entire career with one team or played only about a year or two with another team. Because it is kind of dumb when if a great player retires that as soon as they retire you take the color off. So when a great player like Peyton Manning retires its going to be dumb to just take the color off, assuming he spends his entire career with the Colts.--Bucs10 22:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)Bucs10


 * I believe we should not have team colors for retired players. The choice of which colors to use is too problematic, i.e., what team did they play for longest, where they had the most success, pro-bowl calibre players or not... What do you with someone like Doug Flutie? He was a star in College, the CFL and played for several pro teams. It seems to me a consistent look is better than a melange of colors since these are purportedly encyclopedic articles. If we're trying to spice up the look of the page, add some photos of the player in uniform. As to the default color, I'm open to suggestions if someone has a better idea. Вasil  | talk 23:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I have to agree. Since some players would be near impossible to decide, it should all be consistent and left without color. It's look weird if some retired players had colors and other didn't. I think consistency should be the goal, and since that can't be accomplished with team colors it should be generic.Chris Nelson 00:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Note I indented these so these so they're slightly easier to read. Quadzilla99 00:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

After a while I have decided that I also agree that colors shouldnt be on retired players, due to the point that players like Deion Sanders and Reggie White have had equal amount of success with more than 1 team. But another thing I think is that there should be no color on any players infobox retired or not because many people have changed them and it is dumb that when as soon as a player retires we take the color off. So it is pointless to put color on any infobox.--Bucs10 00:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)Bucs10


 * I disagree there. I see no harm in having colors for active players, and I definitely prefer it. There is no difficulty in deciding what colors to use since there are only one team, so I don't see the problem. I also don't think it's odd to remove the colors once a player retires. That's what should separate current and former players here.Chris Nelson 00:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have yet to hear a single good argument why the colors need to be there at all , retired or otherwise. So far we have: I don't know about you, but I'm not convinced. This is an encyclopedia, not an exercise in aesthetics. (Besides light blue and black are the basis for Wikipedia as a whole.) I know virtually nothing about Australian rules football, but I don't become distraught if I don't see the Pinnaroo Supa Roos' team colors in a player's infobox. I believe it is important to strive for consistency wherever possible, and while many players are known for one team in particular, there are far too many who aren't. The quality of Bart Starr and Terry Bradshaw's articles doesn't suffer if you take away the colors. Sorry. — <b style="color:#000033">x </b><b style="color:#003399">a </b><b style="color:#3366CC">n </b><b style="color:#99CCFF">d </b><b style="color:#6699FF">e </b><b style="color:#3366CC">r </b><b style="color:#003399">e </b><b style="color:#000000">r </b> 05:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Blue and black are ugly;
 * 2) Steel blue looks "old fashioned";
 * 3) Non-football fans will be confused if there is no color;
 * 4) It will be "dumb" to remove the color when a player retires.


 * I agree. The colors aren't informative, just decorative. Has there been any discussion about what this colored text on colored backgrounds does for the color blind or people with other disabilities? There are specific criteria (Section 508) for designing online content for viewers with visual disabilities. Colored type on colored background are big-time no no's—not to mention just plain bad graphic design. See also  Slurpeeman 05:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * "The colors aren't informative, just decorative". Well, according to Mr, Nelson, the colors ARE informative. IF you know the code. If a guy has colors, you know what team he plays for. If he is in gray and black, AHA, he is retired. Makes no sense and is not consistent.Howdythere 02:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * An interesting point—although I don't think you'll get much support for removing the color-on-color schemes from all infoboxes. I happen to agree with your not informative, just decorative argument. Whenever I ponder these sort of issues, I try to think of the needs of a "typical" Wikipedia reader—my mother, for instance. I can't see her saying to herself, "I see Rod Woodson scored a record 12 career touchdowns off interceptions. I wish there was a place where you could see what color pants he was wearing for most of them." — <b style="color:#000033">x </b><b style="color:#003399">a </b><b style="color:#3366CC">n </b><b style="color:#99CCFF">d </b><b style="color:#6699FF">e </b><b style="color:#3366CC">r </b><b style="color:#003399">e </b><b style="color:#000000">r </b>  06:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yellow! 70.174.137.186 06:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Acutally it's 5 While in purple and 5 while in yellow. Pepperjack 14:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * As for the comment "but I have yet to hear a single good argument why the colors need to be there at all". There is not a good reason why they DON'T need to be there. If you get into what is necessary in an encyclopedia, well, there's a never ending debate. This is sports, folks, part of sport is pagentry, ifboxes or no, there is no harm in having a guy like Merlin Olsen in blue and gold . . . no harm whatsover . . . my objection is that this was decided by such a close vote and was done with just 18 voters, it didn't seem fair for the "It's been decided crowd" to keep changing colors. A little too authoritarian for such a small issue. Since logos cannot be used in "fair use" articles, then the only color allowed are the templates. It is hard to find fair use or free use of players in a uniform. If there were color photos of guys in action, that would solve the problem in my eyes, but that is seemingly impossible. So, to me, the next step is a color template for the names. On an inlin encyclopedia, it will be impossible to have just one set of guys with the stelllight blue and others with color . . . it will be too confusing to users and "newbies" like me. I think I haved added a lot of value by solid information and will continue to do so, but the constant changes, etc. .. stinks. SO, I vote FOR colors. Those who work hard to put good verifiable info in an article should be able to have a tiny bit of say over the color.Jturney 16:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that for some guys it's too difficult to decide what team colors to use. That's a judgment call that shouldn't be made by anyone. Therefore it should be left alone. Therefore they should all be generic to be consistent. If a guy isn't under contract with a team at the moemtn, he doesn't need colors. The end.Chris Nelson 17:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Exactly. There's your one good reason. —xanderer 22:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * No offense, but look at your words, Mr. Nelson. "shouldn't be made by anyone" . . . If a guy is under contract at the moment, he does not need colors either? Who is going to look at waiver wires and see about who is cut, one week to the next? You are a 19-year old college student, what makes you qualified to make those calls or not? Nothing more than anyone else. The point of a public encyclopedia is exactly that, it is public. If you want to be a sportswriter, get your degree, get a job, write a book and you can control the content yourself. Until then, why waste such energy to control others? Besides, if you think my verbiage to too strong, look at your arguement. I'd advise taking a logic class. 1. It is too difficult to decide. 2. That is a decision that "shouldn't be made by just ANYONE" 3. Therefore it should be left alone. 3(b) Therefore they should be generic to be consistent. That is a classic false cause arguement and fails. Maybe you should be the one to not make the decision, or how about this---you get one vote, like everyone else?Howdythere 01:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm familiar with logic, thanks. Anyway, yes, a player not under contract should not have colors. It's not that hard to keep up with daily transactions, I do it myself for multiple sports. So if a guy gets cut, he gets generic colors. Edgerton Hartwell shouldn't have Falcons colors right now. It should be changed to a neutral color (like lightsteelblue/black) then if he signs with the Bengals like expected he gets Bengals colors? What doesn't make sense about that?

Like I said before, I think CONSISTENCY should be the goal. Some players you could argue back and forth over what team's colors they should have. The best solution in my opinion is to leave it generic. But I also because that ALL retired players should be treated the same way so things look consistent. You should be able to go to a guy's page, see the colors (or lack thereof) and know instantly "Oh, this guy is a free agent and/or retired." The best thing to do, to avoid any of those judgment calls on retired players, is to keep them all the same.Chris Nelson 01:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps Howdythere did not read the extensive comments above. The fact is this is not one person's decision to make is exactly why there was a poll, and why no less than 22 users have given their opinion here. This is a "discussion page" and we are having a "discussion." However, there is one thing in Howdythere's comments I DO agree with, and that's players who aren't under contract shouldn't have color either. As to who is going to look at waiver wires and see about who is cut, I think they would be surprised to see how quickly changes such as these are made once a player hits the waiver wire. I always am. <b style="color:#000033">x </b><b style="color:#003399">a </b><b style="color:#3366CC">n </b><b style="color:#99CCFF">d </b><b style="color:#6699FF">e </b><b style="color:#3366CC">r </b><b style="color:#003399">e </b><b style="color:#000000">r </b> 01:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You question why Chris Nelson wastes his energy here, but the same could be said of you: Why would you waste so much energy trying the make the infoboxes "prettier" despite a growing consensus against it? Slurpeeman 01:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

See I personally don't like the idea of some retired players having no colors and some having them. I think it will seem confusing for people browsing wikipedia, and I like the idea of colors being a sort of notice about whether or not a player is active. Someone like Dan Marino, yeah, we know what colors we'd put. But what about Jay Fiedler? You could argue his first team, his last team, the Dolphins, and so on. There's no definitive answer. Is it really a bad idea to keep things consistent with retired players?Chris Nelson 02:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * 22 voters, wow-wee. There is several things that are wrong with Mr. Nelson's Hartwell example. One is is he willing to be consistent and follow the NFL wires from now on? For all teams? For all-time? I doubt it. Further, remember about consistency being the hob-goblin of small minds. If consistency is the goal then it should be in the content. What is obvious about one guy going to a site and thinking "oh, this is gray and black, no color, he must be retired" seems a little far fetched. If you know your stuff, you'd know such things, and also know that this place is not known for being 100% accurate. Remember who the audience is, it may be a 19-year old, ahem, radio producer doing research for an interview, or a civic organization needing info for aguest speaker, etc. So, to address a couple of points. I spend energy when I have the time, when I don't I don't. If you all are going to be edit monkeys all the time you will do nothing to increase the base of those who will contribute. If 22 people are going to control a fiefdom, then that's one thing. If this is going to be a user-based encyclopedia, then that's another and that would invlove using some reason and logic. I see see no growing consensus. What I see is a 11-7 vote that was taken earlier this month, and now that vote would be different. Bottom line. You cannot justify colors for active and not for retired. Either everyone has an encyclopedic look or none. There is no other way to be consistent, IF, and I stress IF that is your goals, rather than a toybox to tout your favorite team.Howdythere 02:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

How do you say so much without saying anything at all?Chris Nelson 02:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Chris, you are making the point . . . YOU like colors on active guys, but what color? A guy has a cup of coffee with a team after 11 years in, say, Seattle? If folks want that, they'd go to the team websites. My view is that users do not necessarily fall into the category you seem to think they do. I think when someone Googles a player, they see WIKI, and go to it, they want accuracy in the info. Unless you post the transaction wire when a guy is released, then the changing of his color does little good. Is it really a bad idea to keep things consistent with retired players? I ask, is it a bad idea to be consitent making all American footballers the same?Howdythere 02:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how you can argue with putting the color a team a guy is on currently on his page. That makes the most sense.Chris Nelson 02:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Whatever man. All I can say is I'm glad you're in the minority in your opinion on current players. Tough luck.Chris Nelson 02:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * What I am saying is color for current guys, color for old guys. No color for old guys, no color for current guys. That is the only way to be consistent. One set of rules for a group of guys you may happen to follow and another set for guys you don't is what I don't get. The other thing I don't get is that the 11-7 vote was definative. Your attitude was very controlling and authoritarion. I objected to that. If we're to get along, and I admit I could do better then there has to be a little logic and reasonability. In the scheme of things colors do not matter to me, I prefer them on retired guys if the current guys have them. However, I cannot see having current guys in one color and retired guys without.Howdythere 02:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I completely disagree that to be consistent ALL past and present players must be done the same way. You've yet to provide a good reason for why this is "the only way to be consistent" and this has already been shown here not to be true. You put colors on current plays because they are... drumroll please... under contract and in uniform with that team! You put no colors on retired players because... they are simply guys that use to play football and aren't signed with anyone. I understand the reasoning behind putting colors on guys who played only or mostly with one team like a Marino, Elway or Kelly. But you know there is the problem of what to do with guys that bounced around from team to team. This is NOT an issue with current players, it's only in your mind. I'm sorry you have odd views and that you're in the minority.Chris Nelson 02:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * "The end." . . ."All I can say is I'm glad you're in the minority" . . . That makes the most sense . . . I'm sorry you have odd views and that you're in the minority . . . What is running through all of these statements? Anger, mostly. Control, too. I just don't see how this can be a fair project or a successful project if this additude you display continues. Why would anyone want to contribute? Let me understand, are you the boss here? Do you control it? is your interpretation the final word? I have presented the illogic in your assertions. Now you're angry. Sorry. I just wanted a fair hearing on this. When 22 people voice their opinions when hundreds should be involved then there is not a fair representation. So, unless you have final say-so, then your one vote will be as good as mine. No more, no less.Howdythere 02:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

You're right, I'm so angry. I'm furious. It's so hard to type with these clenched fists. I think I may go strangle some kittens. Somebody stop me. I'm in a rage. I'm out of control.Chris Nelson 02:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Sarcasm is anger's ugly cousin . . . Jack Nicolson in Anger Management. Thanks for illustrating a point. :)Howdythere 03:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

If you want to know what team a player is on you can use KFFL.com

KFFL is a great source for transactions and that kind of info. The Hot Wire is a great thing.Chris Nelson 03:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * When is there going to be another vote? There has been new discussion, yet no new vote. There are people waiting to vote . . . as I have said, the 11-7 vote was hardly decisive, it seems that those who control things think all was decided when it went theri way. . . this is a people's encyclopedia, not just a few controlling authorities' website. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Howdythere (talk • contribs) 16:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC).

You lose. Good day, sir.Chris Nelson 16:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Can't lose what has not been played. The vote was before I began. Further, perhaps you should add a tiny bit of maturity to your attitude. As far as I know, you are not the "king" of this site. If you are, then, ahem. . . verify it. Right? This discussion was fairly reopened and there are dissenting views by those who have added substance, real substance to many articles so it is logical to conclude with a little fairness, not a two man dictatorship.Howdythere 23:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with Howdythere, Chrisjnelson needs to grow up, he left childish shit on my usertalk also.--Yankees10 22:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)Yankees10 (formally known as Bucs10)

You make part of me grow up, baby.Chris Nelson 23:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Really inappropriateHowdythere 02:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow I really dont know what is wrong with that guy--Yankees10 01:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)Yankees10


 * I really think you guys are making too much of this. I'm not sure where the whole "things must be consistent" rule comes from. Actually, making this rule for all of these pages would be considered instruction creep. I think it looks pretty cool with the colors. Bart Starr looks good with his colors and I don't believe his colors should be removed for "consistency". That doesn't make sense. Is someone going to think Bart Starr is an active player because of his color? Of course not, that information is even in the info-box. Someone made the point that "encyclopedias aren't for aesthetics, they're for serious business" or something like that. This point doesn't make much sense either, because Wikipedia does and should care how an article should look. Where does it say that Wikipedia shouldn't worry about how it looks? I would think that Wikipedia should worry about how it looks aesthetically.++ aviper2k7 ++ 02:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree, you points are well made. Jturney 02:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Canadian Football HOF?
There WAS a cell for the Canadian Football Hall of Fame, but it seems to have disappeared sometime in 2006. The link in the cell went to the CFL site, rather than to the more informative bios listed on the Canadian Football HOF's official site. I think a Canadian Football HOF cell would be a great inclusion for stars such as NFL-CFL (and NCAA) stars like Warren Moon, and Doug Flutie, for example. Sundevilesq 22:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I've added this back into the template since the infobox contains CFL statistics and honors already. It's useful information.  RyguyMN 17:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Team Colors
A few weeks ago, I used actual team logos to extract hex colors for each NFL team. These have already been implemented into team templates, roster templates, and other misc. templates. I am now looking for these "real" colors to be implemented into the player pages. So far (to the best of my knowledge), only the Patriots' players have this done. I will change the template in this main article to reflect the new colors. Someone may have to take out out a bot to get all of the player pages done. Pats1 21:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * For examples, see Gemara Williams, Template:New England Patriots, and Template:New England Patriots roster. You may notice that these colors are different from the generic "blue" or "silver" formerly used in the player infobox template. Pats1 21:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * All of the Green Bay Packers players have the official color of the Green Bay Packers in their templates.++ aviper2k7 ++ 03:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks great. I'm just about done changing the colors over, but it seems as though some of the them in the roster templates I'm using have been changed, so I'll need to go back and check those too. Then I'll double-check them against coach, team, and misc. templates. Pats1 21:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree with some of these. I think Detroit should stay blue and black like it was, it looks more modern like their current uniforms. I also don't like Tampa Bay's with the white writing. Some color combinations have bothered me, but not theirs. Is it bothering anyone else with a red font?Chris Nelson 21:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The red font is a bit tough to read on the pewter. The white was also already being used on the team and coach template. Detroit's black was harder to read on the blue, which I'm not sure the hex was from. The silver is a bit easier to read. Pats1 21:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Jersey numbers
I really feel like there should be a place for jersey numbers in the template. Jersey numbers represent players in the eyes of a lot of fans and unless specifically mentioned in a player's article they often aren't even found there at all. I think we should put it in the template somehow, perhaps in the title bar with the guy's name or something.Chris Nelson 23:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I try to write it into the article whenever possible, but I'm all for it. But lets decide the guidelines before we windup with another situation like the one above (retired players). I propose the following:
 * Current jersey number for active players, regardless of what number they're best known for.
 * Jersey number worn the longest for retired players, except in cases where they were especially well known for wearing another.
 * Any other situations that need to be considered? — <b style="color:#000033">x </b><b style="color:#003399">a </b><b style="color:#3366CC">n </b><b style="color:#99CCFF">d </b><b style="color:#6699FF">e </b><b style="color:#3366CC">r </b><b style="color:#003399">e </b><b style="color:#000000">r </b> 01:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Players that have been inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame are of concern here. Dependant upon what team the player chose to be enshrined with in the Hall of Fame, I feel that the number that is displayed should be the number that the play wore the longest when they played for the team that they chose to be enshrined with. Therefore, if Brett Favre were to have worn numbers 71 and 4 while with the Green Bay Packers (which he didn't), obviously the number listed would be 4. Wlmaltby3 – talk/contribs 05:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm really not concerned about retired players, it really isn't needed. For current players it'd be nice. Obviously, it should be their current number.Chris Nelson 06:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I've added current jersey numbers to all current Miami Dolphins player infoboxes. I've put them in the name line with a dash after the name. See Zach Thomas for an example. I took the idea kind of from the MLB infoboxes, which have the numbers after the team and a dash. I think this info should be present in the article, and I think this is a good way to do it. Any comments?Chris Nelson 18:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks good, although it would be better if it was integrated into the actual box. Pats1 21:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but the way I did it still does create the same kind of thing in the MLB infoboxes.Chris Nelson 21:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It would be easier to maintain in the long run if the jersey number were added as a field to the template, rather than appending it to an existing field. --Arcadian 00:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well I'm not sure how it'd be easier. Either you change/add the number to one a field or the other.Chris Nelson 01:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Once the season begins and 53-man rosters are finalized, I am going to begin going through all the players on each team, updating colors AND adding the jersey numbers in the manner I've described. I'll probably do a team per day.Chris Nelson 06:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC) Any objections?


 * Since Chris Nelson has added player numbers in the infoboxes to several player pages, I took the liberty to add a number field to the template for quick entry. Adding the number adds value to the player articles since players are often identified by their jersey numbers. Let me know what you think. RyguyMN 05:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * There seems to be a problem when it comes to displaying numbers for retired players. It would be nice if somehow the template omits the number if the retired player color scheme is used, but I don't have the programming knowledge to get this idea going. RyguyMN 06:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Why would you want their number omitted?++ aviper2k7 ++ 06:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Well I don't think numbers should be there for retired players, since they may have worn multiple numbers and they don't currently have one (similar argument to the colors debate). However, I do REALLY want to get this done for current players, so what can we do? Should we take a poll? I mean there is no way you can argue that it looks bad or has a negative effect on the article, it's a good thing. I guess I see why people think it's not the way the template was intended, but really does it matter if it just says "Name"? A common visitor to an article doesn't know that the bar at the top of the infobox is only for the name, because it only says it in the template? So what do we do? Do we change the template field to say "NameNumber" or something like that? What's the easiest way to get it done?Chris Nelson 00:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Chris that adding numbers for retired players does not make sense since a player could wear multiple jersey numbers over the course of a career. For instance, if Randy Moss finishes his career with the New England Patriots, do you use number 81, 18, or 6?


 * I did some more work on the template and I believe it should now take care of all the issues at hand. I was able to get an if statement working where the infobox would omit the jersey number in the header if the "number" field is left blank or not included in the infobox.  This would eliminate retired players from having a blank number showing up in the header and reduces the amount of work required to correct infoboxes where the number was already added alongside the name.  Let me know what you think.  RyguyMN 04:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Great job man. It's perfect. I really appreciate your efforts in helping.Chris Nelson 04:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Only hardcore fans are that into numbers, I don't mind it being in the infobox but on top is a little much. That's way too prominent. Trevor GH5 20:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

It's very similar to the MLB infoboxes. And I believe you're entirely wrong about hardcore fans being into numbers. It's a big part of a player's image. Everyone knows Vick is No. 7. Manning is No. 18. Favre is No. 4. The info contributes to the articles, and I believe most people would agree it looks good like it is as well.Chris Nelson 21:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Trevor. People who aren't even sports fans read these articles and it's kind of jarring to read Tom Smith - 5. I think we need to get a consensus check here. Quadzilla99 23:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

It looks terrible. The name bar shouldn't begin to be inundated with details. Jersey numbers go from not being on the info box at all, to being placed next to the name? That can easily be put below it. Put it under hight, and weight. DChase1 23:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

You only think it terrible because it's not what you're used to. I bet if it had always been like that, you'd say it looks terrible without it.Chris Nelson 00:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Alright I'm starting a poll down at the bottom of the page. Quadzilla99 00:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Team name
I've added a "team" field right below the image caption to allow a reader to quickly identify which team the player is associated with. Maybe we could somehow link the coloring scheme to what is entered in this field? RyguyMN 03:01, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that's a little redundant, considering the teams part of the infobox lowe down. Pats1 13:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah I know it is, but it seems like the current team is hidden way at the bottom of the infobox. The MLB infobox has the team in the same position and was just seeing how it looks.  Anybody else have comments? RyguyMN 15:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

no offense but, that looks like garbage--Yankees10 14:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)Yankees
 * Sorry, I don't like it either. Trevor GH5 18:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

College and position
When I was going through some articles, I saw that some players had their college shortened or abbreviated. Brad Johnson's infobox says he went to Florida State, while Joseph Addai's infobox says he attended LSU as opposed to writing out Louisiana State. Is there a norm for this field, or is it just random. Why not just write out Louisiana State University--  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  03:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Well I agree there is no point in abbreviating things, especially since there can be multiple ones like FSU or USC. However, I do think there is no point in putting University. Florida State is sufficient. We know what college it is. I for one am not putting University on any of them. It's pointless.Chris Nelson 06:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Very well then, thanks for the reply. --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  08:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Chris Nelson. --Phbasketball6 00:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The shortened postion is bothering me a lot and probably bothers a lot of Wikipedia readers, for the people who doesn't play Madden will probably have a difficult time understanding what S means and when they click on it it would not be the correct link because many people forget that only typing Safety|S defines safety. Thanks --Phbasketball6 13:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Awards
I was looking at the Vince Young article and the awards section and it seems "bulky", in my opinion. Looking at the NCAA player template, it doesnt seem bulky (Ex : Kevin Durant) because the actual awards are in the same colum and in small font. Just a suggestion. Corpx 21:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)