Template talk:Southland Conference navbox

Format
This is regarding the discussion at Templates for discussion/Log/2011 August 26. Looking at all of the NCAA Division I conferences that offer football and/or basketball, which I think we can all agree are the main Division I athletic conferences, the following conferences feature navboxes that are substantially similar to the style being advocated by Jweiss.


 * America East
 * ACC
 * Atlantic Sun
 * A-10 (but really 14)
 * Big East
 * Big Sky
 * Big South
 * Big Ten (but really 12)
 * Big 12 (but really only 10)
 * Big West
 * Colonial
 * Conference USA
 * Great West
 * Horizon League
 * MAC
 * MEAC


 * Mountain West
 * Metro Atlantic
 * Missouri Valley
 * Missouri Valley Football
 * Northeast
 * Ohio Valley
 * Pac-12
 * Patriot League
 * Pioneer Football League
 * SEC
 * SoCon
 * SWAC
 * The Summit League
 * Sun Belt
 * West Coast
 * WAC

Alternatively, the following conferences feature navboxes that are substantially similar to the style being advocated by ThomasHorn7.
 * Ivy League
 * West Coast

I think that shows a clear consensus has already been reached and this template should remain in the format that it us currently in, and the Ivy League and West Coast Conference navboxes should be changed to match the rest of the D1 athletic conference templates. It is important for all of them to remain substantially similar so that there is consistency, making it easier to navigate between articles of the same type. City boy77 (talk) 02:59, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The West Cost Conference template was of the standard form until April of this year. I've changed it back and updated it. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:06, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The Horizon League template was different altogether because of changes I made to it a while ago before I understood navboxes. I've changed it to reflect the formatting of the vast majority of the other articles and added it to the above list. City boy77 (talk) 03:28, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Template:California Collegiate Athletic Association is also of the "Ivy" form. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:57, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


 * So why is the SLC navbox being singled out here? It looks better in the colored form. If you want them all to be the same make them look like the SLC format not like the norm that you are championing. ThomasHorn7 (talk) 04:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


 * It's being singled out because it's one of the odd-balls. Looking at the history, it actually had a standard form more or less until you it changed to the "Ivy" style in July 2010.  The "Ivy" style was introduced to Template:Ivy League in July 2009.  In order to go with the "Ivy" style, a consensus endorsed by two WikiProjects must be overturned.  I think the "Ivy" style make be in violation of Manual of Style (accessibility).  Jweiss11 (talk) 04:08, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * So why isn't the ivy navbox being attacked like the SLC one is? I'm very curious to know. ThomasHorn7 (talk) 04:19, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * There's no "attacking" that I see occurring. From what I've read here and in the TfD, it's Opinion 1 vs. Opinion 2, whereby Opinion 2 is getting incredibly defensive about the nomination. Wikipedia can be frustrating, yes, but this has been a debated, but civil, discussion. Please do not throw around false accusations. Jrcla2 (talk) 04:22, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * ThomasHorn7, when this discussion is over, I will standardize the Ivy League navbox. I've left it untouched as a courtesy for easy reference. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:23, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Courtesy would be leaving the navbox the way it was, it looked far better the other way. And my word choice is besides the point here, what else could I say besides attacked, singled out, poached, etc. It's opinion 1 v. opinion 2 so there is no prerogative to change the navbox. ThomasHorn7 (talk) 04:29, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Identity politics. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:34, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Ownership of articles. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:35, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Really? I hope that was a joke. This is not about Identity politics or ownership. It's about arbitrary changes in style. The navbox had no problems, if it did someone other than you would have changed it long ago. ThomasHorn7 (talk) 04:43, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That someone is me. And long ago is now.  One day soon it will truly be long ago. These changes are clearly not "arbitrary".  They are about aesthetic and functional conformity. Jweiss11 (talk)
 * How long something has been on Wikipedia does not grant it immunity from editing or scrutiny. This is an evolving online encyclopedia, and if things stay the same way forever (namely, things of aesthetic consideration, not factual basis), then Wikipedia is no longer Wikipedia, where consensus and standardization trump personal attachment and minority opinion. Jrcla2 (talk) 12:19, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


 * This discussion should probably be moved to somewhere more high-level (perhaps WP:UNI?). I strongly favor the color theme usage in Ivy League and WCC and believe that MOS:ACCESS in fact supports its usage in such templates, helping make the content of the templates easier to navigate. —Eustress talk 12:16, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * None of these templates have ever been tagged by WP:UNI. Jweiss11 (talk) 12:29, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Then perhaps WP:WikiProject Sports then, but proposing sweeping reform amongst a few editors on the page for of a single conference template is insufficient to claim consensus. —Eustress talk 12:36, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no reform being proposed. Jweiss11 (talk) 12:42, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you, finally someone agreeing that there is no need to change the look of the user boxes just to make it look like some others. The "Ivy" format looks the best and wikipedia should make that the standard if there must be a standard. I do not know the proper avenues to go through to make this happen. ThomasHorn7 (talk) 18:05, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Here is the new proposed layout: User:ThomasHorn7/SLCNav more contrast can be added to the schools that need it.
 * Please note that if we went to this new proposed layout, we wouldn't only have to migrate the 30 or so DI navboxes listed above to it. We'd have to migrate the lower division ones (e.g. Template:Great Lakes Valley Conference navbox) as well plus all the templates for specific aspects of the conferences.  There are 32 navboxes for the Big Ten Conference alone; see Category:Big Ten Conference navigational boxes.  We are talking hundreds of navboxes here. Jweiss11 (talk) 19:50, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * ThomasHorn7, please note that me showing that your version can be done without using two separate navboxes was only to aid in the deletion discussion of those two navboxes and was unrelated to how this particular navbox should be formatted. I believe that it (and the Ivy League and WCC navboxes) should be formatted in line with the rest of the athletic conference navboxes.  Subtle differences, such as whether or not an image/logo is used, as in the case of Template:Horizon League or Template:Big Ten Conference navbox, might be more acceptable but the column formatting you are proposing is an extreme shift from what has been widely used and accepted.  All conference navboxes should look the same, but with different schools listed.  To change how the schools are listed, as you are proposing, should be accomplished after reaching consensus on the issue, which should not and cannot be accomplished here.  Keep in mind that changing this will have a ripple effect throughout thousands upon thousands of pages, all the way down to the high school level or beyond.  Is this something that is truly beneficial to the point that project members should spend the next year changing thousands of navboxes? City boy77 (talk)
 * I think a reading of Don't edit war over the colour of templates is in order here. It's okay if not every template looks exactly the same. Seriously, it's okay. —Eustress talk 21:28, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This essay is really talking about the use of arbitrary color like talk archive boxes being tan or template documentation being turquoise or navboxes being light blue by default. Those choices are indeed rather arbitrary, but there's a value in having them be consistent, which this essay acknowledges.  In navbox templates for sports organizations, the use of color is not arbitrary.  An effort has been made to match navbox colors to that of the logo and pageantry for the particular organization at hand as that helps to convey the subject.  But again, there is a value in consistency here.  My reading of this essay is actually damning to your position in this discussion.  What I've done is simplified and standardized the design scheme of this template.  You are the one holding out for something more complex and irregular.  It is you who is edit warring over the color of a template. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:02, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


 * After doing some reading at Manual_of_Style_(accessibility), I even more firmly believe the Ivy style navbox, using the columns, is inappropriate. The columns can be useful for other purposes, such as grouping together sub-groups within the navbox.  For example, if a navbox existed listing all 50 U.S. states, each column could list the states in a specific geographic region.  That might be helpful.  This navbox is different, however, because each column includes only one item.  The columns serve no purpose except to display the schools' colors, which is not the purpose of a navbox.  The navbox tells what the other articles of interest are.  You then go to the specific article to learn more about that topic, such as a school's colors. City boy77 (talk) 23:07, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Jweiss11 (talk) 23:32, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * So because it gives too much information, it is more helpful, we should change it? Explain the reasoning, I don't follow. ThomasHorn7 (talk) 15:33, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Giving too much information and being more helpful are not the same thing. If you give too much information, it can be unhelpful.  In this case, I believe too much information is a bad thing.  It makes the navbox more complicated than it needs to be.  Navboxes should be very simple to make them easier to use.  I think you should read Wikipedia's manual of style regarding the use of color, then take a look at the Ivy style and the accepted style and think about which version best meets the guidelines.  To be perfectly honest, the Ivy style is a bad thing because wikipedia has color blind users.  That's why accepted navboxes utilize colors only for headings and not for the content itself. City boy77 (talk) 01:51, 28 August 2011 (UTC)