Template talk:Infobox NFL biography/Archive 9

Page move
Per the 2012 TfD outcome, would anybody object if we moved this template to Template:Infobox NFL biography? Alakzi (talk) 21:15, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it would make sense to wait for the merge to be completed, but I have no objection. Which way the redirect runs in the short-term doesn't really matter. ~ RobTalk 21:16, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Not until Template:Infobox NFL coach is merged with this one. ~ Dissident93  (talk) 21:21, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This template is already being used for coaches, like Bill O'Brien. Alakzi (talk) 21:43, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Correct. In fact, most NFL coaches already use Infobox NFL player, not Infobox NFL coach.  That said, I'm not in love with the name "Infobox NFL biography".  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:46, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Any other ideas then? "NFL person"? Though, "biography" is pretty standard. Alakzi (talk) 00:53, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Sadly, no, I do not have a better idea. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:00, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Move to, per the outcome of the relevant TfM, and standard naming. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:27, 28 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I just did a quick review of what other sports projects are titling their personnel infoboxes. Based on the variety of names for other sports personnel infoboxes, here are the leading options for names for the "merged" NFL template:


 * 1) Infobox NFL biography;
 * 2) Infobox NFL football biography;
 * 3) Infobox NFL career;
 * 4) Infobox NFL football career;
 * 5) Infobox NFL person;
 * 6) Infobox NFL football person;
 * 7) Infobox NFL personnel;
 * 8) Infobox NFL football personnel;
 * 9) Infobox NFL player (leave as is); or
 * 10) Infobox NFL football player.


 * I have posted these options on the talk page of WikiProject National Football League (WP:NFL), and asked the project members for their opinion: . As the principal users of this template, it is appropriate that they be consulted.


 * BTW, everyone participating in this discussion understands that the existing Infobox NFL player already supports coaching parameters, right? This is not so much a "merge," as it is a replacement of the existing Infobox NFL coach with the existing (perhaps with some tweaks) Infobox NFL player.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:15, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * A complete merge would isolate all changes to the template, with no changes needed on any other page. On the other hand, a replacement requires changes on each page that currently transcludes Infobox NFL coach. Each option requires a slightly different skillset to execute.  I'll leave it to the worker bees to decide their preference.—Bagumba (talk) 22:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Including "all" colleges attended in Infobox?
Currently this template intends to support a single college via:


 * college            =

Called out as:

In addition to this not being consistently honored, is omitting prior colleges from the Infobox even desirable? Obviously numerous, prominent players have played at multiple schools (JUCO, early college transfer, senior graduate transfer). In many cases, the particulars are flushed out within the article and are a meaningful part of the player's career arc. Some examples: Cam Newton, Warren Moon, Larry Allen, Cortez Kennedy, Dick Lane, Aaron Rodgers and Roger Staubach, and Vernon Adams 2x FCS PotY runner-up at Eastern Washington who will be ultimately listed as FBS Oregon due to a 5th year transfer.

Note 1, if pursued, this should be compliant with the usability improvements called out at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Accessibility, where &lt;br&gt;s are being replaced ala college1= college2= for screen reader usability reasons.

Note 2, an editor wiser than I am may wish to comment on implications (if any) to the long-standing goal of unifying our multiple football infobox templates. UW Dawgs (talk) 00:47, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I'd support allowing the other colleges. Granted we shouldn't generally overload an infobox, but an extra line or two for the few players this applies to adds relevant info, and saves countless edit wars over non-intuitive fine print over the college param. FWIW, it's commonly done for NBA players.—Bagumba (talk) 00:58, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't object to including a second college team in the template college parameter. If we do so, please note that Infobox gridiron football person and Infobox NFL player are coded completely differently.  Infobox NFL player uses embedded "plain list" coding for input data for (1) past teams and (2) honors and awards -- that's why it does not require individual fields for every team and tenure like the CFL infobox does.  There is no good reason for mixing the two styles of coding.  The other alternative for college teams with relatively short names, e.g., "Auburn" or "Florida," you can already include both in the same field separated by a comma.  We just need to change the infobox parameter instructions on the template documentation page.  Cheers.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:20, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Although I have reverted edits adding other colleges in the past, I did so only because that is the outline of the current template. That being said, I would support allowing other colleges, as long as it doesn't overcrowd infoboxes. Chambr (talk) 04:09, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I'd still say two max, if both were equally important. If a player attended 5 community colleges of minor note and then a major university, I say we still just list the major one only. (I.E., players like Cam Newton are the exception, not the norm.) ~ Dissident93  (talk) 04:58, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I have tweaked the instructions for the "collegeteam" parameter to be permit the listing of more than one college team, with the caveat "if important to understanding a player's college career history." Please review and let me know if this provides sufficient flexibility to deal with situations where a given player had significant playing time as a member of two different college teams. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you, this solution is preferable to my over-thought implementation inclusive of years-attended. Would the instructions benefit from an explicit styling callout, re left-to-right, comma-delimited (newest-to-oldest) vs stacking (&lt;/br>, newest-above-oldest)? Currently this feels open to both executions. Most records I've seen were executed as left-right, but NFL users might be biased to stacking as is done for the player's pro teams.  UW Dawgs (talk) 18:48, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Please avoid using  to achieve stacking as per WP:VLIST. plainlist or unbulleted list would achieve the same look while being accessible. ~ RobTalk 19:03, 27 August 2015 (UTC)