Template talk:Infobox NFL biography/Archive 14

Misuse of flag icons
Can you create tracking categories for the misuse of flag icons in the place of birth and place of death infobox parameters (e.g., Jerry Sherk)? We do not use them for birth and death places, ever, and they served no purpose for NFL players' nationality because NFL players do not represent their country in international competition. Hopefully, there are precious few of these, but the ones that do exist need to be removed. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:45, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmmmm...off the top of my head I'm not sure how to tackle that, but let me give it some thought and see if I can come up with some sort of solution. Thanks. &mdash; DeeJayK (talk) 17:45, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * So, I've figured out a simple way to create a tracking category to track the use of flagicons in the Infobox. I've tested this in Infobox NFL coach and found one page which was using this (which I have since fixed) — see . I don't have Template Editor privileges, so I cannot implement this in Infobox NFL player (which is protected), but I have submitted a request for such privileges and hope to gain them soon. &mdash; DeeJayK (talk) 16:19, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ Should you need any other changes to NFL player while you're waiting, let me know and I'll add them in. Should I add the other depreciated params to player? Primefac (talk) 16:34, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Primefac. No, I don't think we want to add the other params at this point. Unfortunately, my privileges request was shot down (for now), since I haven't done enough work on protected templates (or at least haven't submitted proof of such). I guess if I want to suggest additional changes to the template I'll just submit them on the talk page for now. &mdash; DeeJayK (talk) 17:03, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I have template editor rights. Just leave the verbatim code for any change you want made on the talk page and ping me; I'm happy to help your good and thorough work any time I can.  And please let me know next time you request the TE bit; clearly, I will support your request.  Cheers.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:09, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * There's a small error in the way this was implemented on Infobox NFL player. Instead of
 * it should be:
 * Thanks! &mdash; DeeJayK (talk) 17:17, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Whoops. Primefac (talk) 17:19, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks like a pretty short list (currently 4 articles) — . &mdash; DeeJayK (talk) 17:41, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * This tracking category is now empty. I assume that someone has removed the flag icons from the four articles mentioned above -- correct?  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:29, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It wasn't me who did it, but I would make the same assumption that someone undertook this cleanup. Unfortunately, I don't recall any of the names on the list, which makes it difficult to determine who it may have been. I've confirmed the code to populate the category still exists in the template, so I'm pretty confident that we're in good shape on this issue. &mdash; DeeJayK (talk) 16:12, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * removed the flag icon from the Jerry Sherk example I provided above in my original post. Y10 regularly patrols athlete infoboxes for such formatting errors.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:54, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It wasn't me who did it, but I would make the same assumption that someone undertook this cleanup. Unfortunately, I don't recall any of the names on the list, which makes it difficult to determine who it may have been. I've confirmed the code to populate the category still exists in the template, so I'm pretty confident that we're in good shape on this issue. &mdash; DeeJayK (talk) 16:12, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * removed the flag icon from the Jerry Sherk example I provided above in my original post. Y10 regularly patrols athlete infoboxes for such formatting errors.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:54, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Are links to external sites appropriate in this Infobox?
I think we need to discuss whether the use of links to external (non-WP) sites in these infoboxes (Infobox NFL coach, Infobox NFL player and the in-progress merger of the two at Infobox NFL biography/sandbox). Currently these infoboxes link to a variety of external sites for player and coach stats, Halls of Fame, etc. Dirtlawyer1 has previously suggested that there has been a "strong trend across all sports ... to remove external stats links from athlete/coach bio infoboxes and move them to the "external links" section of the article." As a WP reader, I find these links quite useful and having them in the infobox provides a consistent location to find them in most articles. Are there any other arguments as to why these links should be retained? On the other hand, an issue that has recently come up regarding the CFL links on player pages points to one strong argument against these sorts of links, since the external sites can change causing broken links and maintenance headaches. Other than this technical/practical issue what are the other arguments for removing these links? It would seem that now is as good a time as any to hash this topic out, since we are trying to determine how best to merge these templates and also figure out whether it makes sense to undertake the cleanup effort caused by the CFL site change. &mdash; DeeJayK (talk) 15:14, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the strongest argument for getting rid of these elinks is that they can be dynamic. As I recently found out, all it takes is to change the structure of a website and the template/elink is (literally) impossible to correct. I can, of course, see the benefits in a "see more information" elink, but I presume that most of these articles already have references/elinks to such sites, making it redundant at best and (if a bad link) broken at worst. Overall, my !vote would be to nix them all (except the "website" param, which is in every infobox). Primefac (talk) 18:20, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I hate to see "links farms" of three, four or five links at the bottom of the infobox; no more than one link should be retained in the infobox, and for players of the past 20 years preference should be given to the NFL.com player pages. The databaseFootball.com links need to be removed because (a) the website has not been actively maintained since 2011, (b) we've already removed them from Template:Infobox NFL player some time ago, and (c) it was never a particularly good stats site to begin with.  If we're going to keep any links at all in the infobox, we should retain the official NFL profile for modern era players; Pro-Football-Reference.com is often a better resource for players of the 1920s, '30s, '40s and '50s, for whom NFL.com often provides little more than a name and birth date.  Links for CBS Sports, ESPN, Yahoo, etc., should all be moved to the "external links" section, if they are retained at all.  I'm happy to elaborate on those points at length if anyone wants to argue the merits of particular sites.  Bottom line: our NFL infobox should not be a "link farm."  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:13, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * With regard to the DatabaseFootball links, I've completely removed them from Infobox NFL coach as part of my cleanup efforts. I've also removed the ESPN and CBS links from the coach infobox (although I found no pages were actually using them anyway.) In addition, I changed that template so that only ONE external link of a given type (player stats, NFL coach stats, CFL coach stats, NCAA coach stats) is displayed — previously a single infobox could potentially have had as many as 8-10 external links if all of the parameters were filled in. However, in light of the CFL link issues that have recently come to light, I'm in more of a mind to support complete removal of these sorts of links primarily due to the issues noted by Primefac above. &mdash; DeeJayK (talk) 23:42, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with every word you just wrote. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:07, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Link rot is an issue whether or not it is in the infobox or in an external link section. The good thing with having it in a template, whether or not it is in an infobox, is that it is centralized.  If there is a simple format change needed, it can be done universally; if it is obsolete, it can be easily disabled.  The more relevant question is which ones are useful while avoiding WP:LINKFARM.  As a note, WP:NBA has given up on NBA.com links to retired players because the NBA is notorious for drastically changing their url formats for non-active players (though a few people still manually add them w/o templates to EL section)—Bagumba (talk) 00:48, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer to keep at least one (or an acceptable minimum that avoids WP:LINKFARM) that is used for verification of infobox facts that are typically not sourced in the body. The reality is that most timely updates occur in the infobox regarding new teams, not in prose, so one profile link could be used for ease of verification.  Secondly, its just convenient as a reader to have that EL in the infobox, and it's almost akin to an official link being allowed to to a website. There's also the matter of other player bio info that is in the infobox that is often not sourced in the body, like birthplace, height, weight, etc.  Again, the EL serves as a convenient citation or sorts for articles that have not reached FA/GA level of quality.—Bagumba (talk) 00:48, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * These are excellent points, and I'm thinking I'm becoming convinced that there is some merit to supporting a limited number of external links in the infobox. In particular, your comments regarding link rot are well said and I see the value in having the potential ability of fixing a whole group of broken links with a single change. In terms of the specific sites that are being linked to, the NFL site and the Pro Football Reference/ Sports Reference sites that are linked by Infobox NFL coach all seem fairly solid in terms of a commitment to at least maintaining a consistent ID structure (if not a consistent URL structure). I don't know enough about stats.CFLdb.ca to hazard a guess as to its stability. In terms of number of links, I've limited the current coach infobox to a maximum of four external links under the "Stats" header: NFL/PFR player stats, College coach record, NFL coach record and CFL coach record. Obviously, there are very few individuals where all four of these would be used. In terms of the potential merged template, I guess a CFL player link (if it's stable) would be appropriate to include as well. In addition, the infobox supports external links to the various Halls of Fame (NFL, CFL, College FB) which are located at the bottom. What is the tipping point that triggers WP:LINKFARM concerns? &mdash; DeeJayK (talk) 18:55, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The first consideration I'd use for LINKFARM is to weed out links that don't provide a needed and unique resource. If the content mostly overlaps, and verifiability is already satisfied by another link, there's no need to add more. If we look at Jack Del Rio's PFR link for his playing stats, it has a link on the page to his pro coaching record.   Chip Kelly at PFR has a link to his college coaching profile at sports-referece.com, but that doesnt have a backlink back to his pro stats.  Ideally, we could use one link that a reader can navigate from, and PFR more or less has that.  I presume its only a matter of time before sports-reference.com links back to PFR. So maybe we add that with NFL.com, because it'd be strange not to have NFL.com for an NFL player/coach.—Bagumba (talk) 20:11, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Revisiting this issue, I can live with one or two player profile links (NFL.com, Pro-Football-Reference.com); the CBS, ESPN, Yahoo, etc., links should just be eliminated. I suggest we program the template to only display ONE link, with a preference for the NFL.com player profile; instructions may be included on the template page to use Pro-Football-Reference.com for historical players before 1980 or so. PFR has more complete player histories for players from earlier eras. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:21, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The approach you suggest above is essentially what has been implemented in the sandbox. As it's currently configured only one playing stats link will be displayed, with a preference for NFL.com over PFR if both are present (all others have been removed). In addition there could be (as appropriate) external links for NFL coaching record (PFR), college coaching record (Sports-Reference.com), CFL coaching record (CFLdb.com), Arena playing stats (ArenaFan.com) and possibly CFL playing stats (if someone figures out a solution to the broken link issue noted previously). In the latest design these links generally appear at the bottom of the section in which they are appropriate, which for the most part avoids a list of external links grouped together on the page. I think this approach is rational and don't feel that it makes the page appear to be a WP:LINKFARM. &mdash; DeeJayK (talk) 16:02, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I can live with one player stats link and one coach stats link, but multiple coach stats links -- regardless of whether they are links for separate CFB, NFL, CFL and Arena coaching histories -- are by definition a "link farm". This is an unavoidable problem with coaches who have coached at different levels and in multiple leagues.  If there is more than one relevant coach stats link, then the whole lot of them should be moved to the "external links" section of the article.  The same principle should apply to players who have played in multiple leagues.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:49, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, there is no single source I am aware of that contains information on coaching records across NFL, CFL and college, so a single external link encapsulating a coach's entire history is not an option. Frankly, the number of articles that would have more than one coaching external link is fairly small, and if there is one with with all three (NFL, CFL and college) I have yet to come across it. As such, the majority of articles will be limited to no more than one playing stats and one coaching record external links. Obviously, we could code the infobox in such a way that we present only a single link of each type, but that would require us to define a hierarchy to determine which link to display (e.g. College takes precedence over NFL which takes precedence over CFL, etc.) I wouldn't want to even think about opening the Pandora's box that would entail, and it would do a disservice to those coaches whose primary contribution was in an area we chose to define as a less important. I appreciate your desire, Dirtlawyer1, to have all external links moved to the "external links" section, but I don't believe that is an issue that we can necessarily address with the infobox. In the end, the proposed merged template definitely pares down the number of external links we are presenting and any single case where the infobox satisfies anyone's definition of a link farm would be an extreme edge case indeed. Let's not make perfect the enemy of good.&mdash; DeeJayK (talk) 20:39, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

alma_mater error?
The doc page lists alma_mater as a valid parameter. However, it is giving off an error category of Category:Deprecated infobox param (alma mater) (yes redlink is correct). Is this deprecated and if yes, shouldn't it be going into Category:Pages using infobox NFL coach with deprecated syntax? Also, there a couple of other redlink cats on the doc page. Bgwhite (talk) 09:21, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, this was something I introduced as part of my ongoing cleanup effort. In the case of alma_mater, I wanted to see how widely that parameter is used. I'm trying to figure out if there is a way to merge alma_mater and college that makes sense. The two parameters are presented in different ways in the Infobox, but for the most part they should be conveying the same basic information. It seems that in the current presentation, the use of college makes more sense for those who played football in college, while the use of alma_mater makes more sense for those who weren't college football players.
 * If these temporary redlinked categories are a real problem, I can remove them. That said, I find them very useful to my cleanup effort. Perhaps someone can suggest another way I can achieve my ends. Also, if anyone has an opinion as to the alma_mater vs. college question, I'd be happy to hear it. Thanks! &mdash; DeeJayK (talk) 14:34, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Obviously, any temporary tracking categories that are being used during the present merge efforts should be retained until the merge an related manual clean-up are completed. We retain administrative tracking categories that are intermittently empty for all sorts for purposes.  That said, if BGW (a skilled gnomer and admin) has a preference how these tracking cats should be structured and labeled, we should welcome his help in that regard.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:26, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I've been cleaning out several deprecated parameter categories and have noticed dependencies between the doc and the code. I thought this might be another case and there could be an error.
 * There are two ways of seeing what parameters are being used without resorting to temporary categories. 1) The use of template tiger.   This is the results for .  This is the results for .  These results are from the May 2015 dump, which reminds me I need to run new data for enwiki and pass it along to the template tiger people so it can be updated. It should be updating every couple of months. 2)  can do the same thing.  See Template talk:Infobox dam.   Bgwhite (talk) 21:46, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I assume the tracking categories issue has been resolved. As for the substance of the original question, yes, there should be single parameter for college, not a second separate parameter for a coach's "alma mater". The overall goal of this exercise is to simplify and conform all odds and ends to the single, uniform template. Non-conforming "legacy" parameters such as "alma mater" need to be eliminated. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:59, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The approach I have taken in the sandbox with regard to alma mater is to keep it, but change the manner in which it is displayed. The thinking behind this is that college (or cis) would be used in cases where a person played college football (which is the vast majority of those to whom this infobox applies) while alma mater would be used in cases where the person did NOT play college football. The two parameters are displayed in different locations — alma mater would be displayed in the "Personal information" section whereas college is displayed in the "Career information" section (since college football is essentially the beginning of a person's career in the sport). If BOTH parameters are included, only college (or cis) is displayed, while alma mater is suppressed. Obviously, if we decide to go forward with this approach, we would make this distinction clear in the template documentation (which is something I have put off tackling for the merged template until we come to some consensus as to whether the merge is agreeable). &mdash; DeeJayK (talk) 15:45, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The case you describe -- a professional football coach who never played college football -- is relatively rare, but I will allow that it does occur from time to time. If you want to build an "alma mater" parameter into the template, then the "college team" and "alma mater" parameters must be exclusive, and the template coding must provide that the use of the "college team" parameter must suppress the display of the "alma mater" parameter, and, yes, obviously this must be explained clearly and definitively in the template instructions/documentation.  Speaking from seven years of experience in using Template:Infobox college coach, which includes separate parameters for "college team" and "alma mater," inexperienced editors invariably want to use both (one for the university attended and the other for the college team), and even experienced editors often do not understand the distinction between the two and when it is appropriate to use one and not the other.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:40, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think the risk of continuing to support both parameters is high. If an editor populates both and notices that alma mater is not displayed, then hopefully they would avail themselves of the infobox documentation where the correct usage will be documented. &mdash; DeeJayK (talk) 23:06, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

birth_name
any thoughts on birth_name? for example, see Abdul-Karim al-Jabbar. there are about 10 articles currently using this parameter. Frietjes (talk) 15:17, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I see no reason why we shouldn't include this parameter, given that just about every infobox gives some variant on "native/birth/original name". Primefac (talk) 01:53, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * okay, since it seems uncontroversial, now added. Frietjes (talk) 16:45, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * None of the American football infobox variants have ever used birth name and nickname variants, and the infobox does not restate the player's name in in the infobox in any form, only showing the article display name (i.e., the WP:COMMONNAME) at the top of the infobox. These are are very long infoboxes when all of the optional parameters are used, and especially so when the player has a long list tenures and awards and/or had a subsequent coaching career.  Given the particular circumstances, I think listing the player's full name in bolded text in the lead is more than sufficient and adding a birth name parameter to this infobox is redundant.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:00, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm with Frietjes and Primefac on this one. It seems that this is only going to apply to a very small subset of articles and I don't feel concerns over the length of the infobox are sufficient to veto the addition of a piece of information which in some cases can be crucial to understanding a person's biography and which will add only a single line. &mdash; DeeJayK (talk) 16:20, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * We have done without a "birth name" parameter for 16,000+ articles for 8.5 years. The birth name is best presented in the bolded statement of the subject's full name in the lead sentence of the article.  In typical Wikipedia fashion, if the "birth name" parameter is retained in the template, it will not be an exception for very long, and it will simply be added to every infobox over time.  There is nothing particularly crucial about including a birth name in the infobox when it's already included in the lead.  We've done just fine without separate parameters for full name, birth name and nicknames in the infobox.  The nickname parameter has proved to be especially problematic for modern athletes, where it is to often used to insert all sorts of unsourced fancruft, inside jokes and BLP violation.  The birth name parameter is merely redundant.  If this infobox did not often run to more 12 or 15 column inches as filled out, I would be more inclined to acquiesce in its addition.  When you see something like the ridiculously long Emmitt Smith infobox, however, you quickly realize that adding redundant parameters is perhaps not such a great idea.  Yes, just "one more line" does matter when we're trying to gain some control over the ridiculously overpopulated uses of the template.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:08, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * As far as I am aware Emmitt Smith hasn't changed his name since he was born — please feel free to correct me if I am wrong. I understand there are examples where the infobox is perhaps too packed with information, but I see that as an opportunity to pare down what is being presented in that individual article, not necessarily as an argument that we can't or shouldn't add something new. Also, your argument that we shouldn't do something simply because we haven't done it previously doesn't hold a lot of water with me — no phone prior to the first iPhone lacked a physical keypad and relied primarily on a touchscreen for input, but I'm glad that the Apple design team didn't let that stop them from designing the first modern smart phone. &mdash; DeeJayK (talk) 20:48, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

One arguments to add birth_name is WP:OTHERSTUFF, which is not compelling without further justification. Another reason was that it provides further biographic detail. However, his parents, siblings, spouse, etc. would also provide more background, so I'm not seeing how his birth name is any more important. Frankly, it's rarely a key point of notability for NFL people. Per WP:IBX: "The less information [an infobox] contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance." I'd support removal of this new parameter.—Bagumba (talk) 01:44, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't believe anyone is suggesting we add "parents, siblings, spouse, etc." to this infobox, so I'm having a hard time seeing how that bit of your argument is relevant. Additionally, you state that birth name is "rarely a key point of notability for NFL people" — I can agree with this, but "rarely" is not "never" and for those individuals for whom it is a key point, it's worthwhile to have the infobox support it. For some small handful of people (e.g. perhaps Ahmad Rashād) the decision to change one's name can be a significant and even defining decision in one's life. As such, it seems worthy of inclusion in the infobox. &mdash; DeeJayK (talk) 15:14, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Consider this from WP:IBX also: "If the field is relevant to very few articles, it should probably not be included at all." I maintain that this is a common enough attribute to have been added.—Bagumba (talk) 03:50, 8 January 2016 (UTC)