Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football/Archive-Nov2007

FAC Help Requested
I've recently submitted 2006 Chick-fil-A Bowl for a featured article review. It's already been checked off as a good article, but I could really use some help in checking it over for redundant sentences, help in trimming the prose, and just general NPOV checks and clarity. Any and all help would be greatly appreciated. Together, we can make this the third featured article for the College Football Wikiproject. It's almost there... it just needs a little more help.

Project Page

JKBrooks85 21:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This article is getting close. Good work so far.
 * My main concern is that the header is way down the page instead of at the top of the article.  Other articles, such as 2006 Alamo Bowl, 2007 Fiesta Bowl, 2005 Texas vs. Ohio State football game, and 2007 Trinity vs. Millsaps football game put it at the top.  This template introduces several important things at a glance, including who played, who the coaches were, who won, who was home team, etc.  I believe that the consensus of this WikiProject is that it should go at the top.  I think it is important to try to keep some consistency.
 * I will note other suggestions on the FA candidacy page as I spot them. Johntex\talk 21:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

2007 Trinity vs. Millsaps football game
There is some discussion at Talk:2007 Trinity vs. Millsaps football game about what is a more appropriate "title" to use in the infobox for this game. We could use some outside opinions to help reach a conclusion. Thanks, Johntex\talk 18:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Portal links
Sorry, if this is a dumb question - I'm really new. What's with the red links at the top of this page, about the portal? Can anyone make those? —Preceding unsigned comment added by GTBuzzer (talk • contribs) 19:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Its just a reminder that the selected image/article pages haven't been written for the portals for december. That message will go away when those pages are created. The image and article for December have already been picked, but nobody has created the entry yet. I think that warning should only come up during the last week or two of the month, but oh well.↔NMajdan &bull;talk 15:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Policy Discussion on use of logos
There is a policy discussion that could affect articles created by this project. Please see this discussion about whether policy should forbid team logos to be placed on articles pertaining to individual seasons. You are invited to contribute to the discussion, if you wish. Best, Johntex\talk 15:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Reminder on infobox use for bowl games
With bowl season approaching, I just wanted to remind everybody on the templates we have. Collegebowl should be used on the general bowl game article (such as Poinsettia Bowl or Rose Bowl (game)). Infobox CollegeFB Bowl should be used on the specific yearly game article (such as 2007 Poinsettia Bowl). At least, that is my general understanding of how these were meant to be used when they were created. Also, if anybody has some free time, Infobox CollegeFB Bowl needs documentation created for it.↔NMajdan &bull;talk 15:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Should this template also be used for other "named" games that are not offical bowls? Example Coca-Cola Classic (college football) ?? --Paul McDonald 15:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it could be, yes. Also, I added documentation for Infobox CollegeFB Bowl and made some parameters optional. That way, the template doesn't look blank if added before the game is played. Before, all fields were shown so for the 2007 bowl game articles, the anthem, announcers, halftime show, odds, etc were all there but blank. I also removed some automatically added brackets which will require manual fixing on the articles themselves. I removed brackets from the stadium name since some stadiums need disambigs such as Rose Bowl (stadium).↔NMajdan &bull;talk 17:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Image question
Hi. I'm new here, so I was wondering how I could upload a couple images from flickr. Here's a link: pictures. They are listed under some rights reserved so I think they can be uploaded. I think a couple could really work well in some Iowa articles. Thanks. - djkdan  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Djkdan (talk • contribs) 03:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Those images have the noncommercial symbol, thus forbidding commercial use. Images that forbid commercial use or derivatives are generally not allowed on Wikipedia. Look for images with the "Attribution License" or the "Attribution-ShareAlike License". You can ease the process of searching for these images by using the advanced search and checking all boxes by the "Creative Commons" section.
 * After you find suitable images, upload them to the Commons. Images uploaded to the Commons may simultaneously be used on Wikipedia and Wikipedia's sister projects. Hope this helps.  Blue  Ag09 (Talk) 07:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You could also ask that Flickr user that uploaded the image that you would like to use their images on Wikipedia and request they change the license. All of us around here have had success doing that in the past.↔NMajdan &bull;talk 13:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * A good way to find image is to put a category such as Category:2007 NCAA Division I FBS football season in the Flickr tool at http://tools.wikimedia.de/~magnus/fist.php - Peregrine Fisher 16:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposal of Policy regarding Top 25 Rankings on team pages
That ONLY the TOP 25 ranked teams should be included on Team pages. Dawg1279 06:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think that's a good move. Top 25 teams change from week to week and year to year, so we would potentially be adding and then deleting artilces every week.  That's a lot of maintenence!--Paul McDonald 15:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure this proposed policy is in regards to the earlier Top 25 Ranking discussion. I agree that only those teams in the Top 25 should be ranked because the polls themselves do not consider other teams receiving votes to be ranked #26, #27, etc. Gopherbone 15:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * If Gopherbone is right, then I agree. Though we did discuss this somewhere before and I don't think it really needs to be stated so explicitly, just with new folks every year, we get people that don't understand how the polls really work so we have to explain to them each time. Perhaps a "FAQ" about WP:CFB where things like this would be a good thing to have on it? (National Championships would be another.) MECU ≈ talk 18:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Agree with proposal that there should be a CFB guideline re rankings on team pages. Perhaps BCS ranking would be better than the USA ranking on the team schedule, and if USA rank is used, a "V" should be used in place of a ranking for teams outside of the Top 25 yet still received votes. B 16:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think "RV" is traditionally used in other places (means "Received Votes"). I'm against using the BCS because it isn't available for the entire season. We selected the Coaches because it's part of the BCS calculation, traditional and covers the entire season. MECU ≈ talk 19:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Agree re: "RV". However, the current template for game schedule/results automatically places a "#" symbol when a value is given for rank so that the value "RV" would look like "#RV" in the article.  The template will need to be edited to allow for "RV" and a footnote to explain "RV" at the bottom of the template. B (talk) 22:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to remove 2007 NCAA Division I FBS football season "Key games" section
Comments requested here.↔NMajdan &bull;talk 18:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

New template/infobox
I created a simple infobox for our main yearly article such as 2006 NCAA Division I FBS football season called Infobox NCAA Division I FBS season. Long winded, I know, but I was going for accuracy (also, Infobox NCAA Division I-A season redirects to the FBS one). So far, I have put it on the 2006 article and the 2007 article so you can see the difference between a completed season and an in-progress one. I modeled it after Infobox NFL. What I like about this template is it automatically discerns between Division I-A and Division I FBS depending on the year, so the editor doesn't have to worry about it and it is always accurate. Take a look at it and let me know if I should make any changes or if you spot any errors. Also, any help on adding it to the other articles would be appreciated.↔NMajdan &bull;talk 16:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Is there any picture/logo that would go well with it? Right now, it's pretty small and might be easily overlooked. I like the idea. How about some of the other awards as well -- Bednarik Trophy, Ray Guy Award, things like that? JKBrooks85 (talk) 18:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

CFB Schedule Colors
Someone changed the colors on the CFB Schedule template. I find them to be hard on the eyes. Just wondering what everyone else thinks. Template in question: Template:CFB Schedule Entry Example: 2007 LSU Tigers football team I think the old colors were better. Seancp (talk) 00:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks like its been reverted. I'm not seeing a difference.↔NMajdan &bull;talk 19:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * User:Fbdave changed the colors again. I reverted and asked that he discuss any color changes, which replicates to dozens of articles, on the template talk page.↔NMajdan &bull;talk 22:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

NCAAFootballSingleGameHeader template usage
be placed at the top of all single-game college football articles, or just those without well-developed lead sections and infoboxes? !! time=18:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC) }}

Johntex and I have been having an interesting debate over the usage of the NCAAFootballSingleGameHeader over on the FAC page for 2006 Chick-fil-A Bowl (Shameless plug: stop by and leave comments if you get a chance). The debate centers around whether or not the template should uniformly head every single-game article or not.

My position is that for longer articles (like 2006 Chick-fil-A Bowl), all the information in the template is already given in the infobox and in the lede paragraphs, so there's no need to put the template at the top of longer articles. Putting it at the top forces all the other information down the page and really overshadows the infobox and the lead paragraphs. I'm not saying that the template shouldn't be included at all — in my 2006 Chick-fil-A Bowl article, I put it in the statistics section. It's a valuable way to express a lot of information in a short space, and looks pretty nice. I'm not even saying that it shouldn't head up a page — on shorter single-game articles, especially those without infoboxes, it's a great replacement for an infobox. But on longer articles, its size overwhelms the lead paragraphs of text and the lead infobox. My suggestion is that for longer articles, it should be placed at the end of the game recap section or in a separate game statistics section where it won't clutter up the top of the article and overwhelm the text.

Johntex's position (and please correct me, John) is that the template should be at the top of all single-game articles in order to achieve a common style for single-game college football articles. He feels that the template isn't distracting and doesn't overwhelm the rest of the text, even in longer articles. For an example, he suggests 2006 Alamo Bowl. John, please let me know if this is correct.

Any and all comments would be greatly appreciated. JKBrooks85 00:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that it's a nice template, but I don't think it should be placed at the top of the page. It's my belief that the top left of every article should quickly describe what the article is about.  Most people looking up football games know what they are reading about, but if someone who doesn't know what a football game is sees that template at the top I think it could confuse them.  I think using it at the top of a stats section is a good idea.  By that point in the article all readers should understand what the page is about, and people who just want the stats can get there pretty quick by clicking on the TOC. I didn't find anything at Manual of Style that specifically addresses the issue, but my guess is that it's assumed that a lead paragraph is always the first thing in an article. Another thing to consider is monitor resolution.  Computers with low resolutions will have the their first look at the page overwhelmed by the template, in extreme cases the first sentence won't even show without scrolling. - Peregrine Fisher 02:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * As JKBrooks85 correctly mentions (thank you, JK), I favor putting the template at the top of the article. We are currently doing this on most of our single game articles.  For several examples, please see:
 * 2006 Alamo Bowl, 2007 Fiesta Bowl, 2005 Texas vs. Ohio State football game, 2006 Insight Bowl, 1987 Fiesta Bowl, and 2007 Trinity vs. Millsaps football game
 * These articles have been started and edited by a wide variety of editors. Several have reach Good Article status. I think it is safe to say the usage is very widespread and indicates a consensus on how to handle these types of articles.
 * Such a template is not unique within Wikipedia. There are many other templates in Wikipedia that go on the top of the article and that can span the entire width.  Most of them are not nearly as informative as this one.  For examples, look at the templates splashed across the top of these articles: Free content, 2007 Tabasco flood, and ABBA.  Or see  or almost any of the templates at Template messages/General
 * This template is bigger, yes, but it tells the reader so many useful things:
 * Who was playing, including tiered links to the school, athletics program, football program, and the specific season (if applicable)
 * Who the coaches were
 * Who won
 * What was the score - quarter by quarter, including over-time, if applicable
 * Rank of each team coming in
 * Nickmame or title of the game, if applicable
 * This is a case where the template is more informative, pixel-by-pixel, that prose. As such the template should be given prominent placement at the top of the article.
 * As to monitor resolution, I suspect that people with low-resolution are vanishingly rare these days. Even if someone with a low-resolution monitor comes to the article, I don't think they will have any trouble realizing immediately that they need to scroll down.  It is very common these days for web pages to have header information that readers scroll past.  It really is how the web works.
 * Therefore, I support the existing standard of putting this template at the top  of single-game articles. I look forward to hearing additional views. Best, Johntex\talk 02:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * These days the most common screen resolution is 1024x768 (according to display resolution). With that resolution, the header appears to take up about a third of the screen (at least in Firefox) so I'm not sure if that would be too overwhelming. To me, it looks fine on top of the page, and most of the other single-game articles have their headers on the top, so I think it would be a good idea to maintain this consistency. Information presented in a consistent manner eases searching for certain things. Besides, not all of the info in the header is included in the infobox and lede, as shown by Johntex above. In a way, I think the header can be considered a lead—if a reader wanted a brief overview of the game, they can just look at the header, which pretty much sums up the whole game.  Blue  Ag09 (Talk) 03:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * To me, a third of the screen is a hell of a lot, especially when another third is taken up by the Wikipedia tabs and left-side bar. That leaves less than a third of the screen for the lead paragraph. Why limit yourself with a single template when you can provide even more information with text and an infobox at the top? For shorter articles like the 2007 Trinity vs. Millsaps football game, there's more of a reason to put it at the top since the lede doesn't tell you as much and there's no infobox, but when you've reached the level of 2005_Texas_vs._Ohio_State_football_game, there's no reason to put it at the top. The infoboxes and lede give you even more information than the header can provide. In that article, the header is so big that I can't even see the lower half of the Texas infobox, and I won't even know that there's an Ohio State infobox until I scroll down. JKBrooks85 14:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If you will permit me to turn around your last sentence, "If the Ohio State and Texas infoboxes go at the top, and the single-game header comes later, the reader will not even know the single game header is there until they scroll down". Everything in the article can't be shown in the first screen-height.  At 1024x768, with the single-game header at the top, the lead paragraph is certainly at least starting to show in the first screen.  The reader should easily see to scroll down for the text. Johntex\talk 14:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * But that's my point -- effective communication should require as little effort as possible. You shouldn't be forced to scroll down in order to get the information you want. A good lead section, coupled with infoboxes, can give much more information far more quickly than just the header. JKBrooks85 15:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * But everything can't be seen at once. If you put the text and other infoboxes above the header, then you have to scroll down to see the header. So, you have to scroll down to see everything either way.  Therefore, your point does not make sense to me.  In terms of effective communication, the header is an extremely effective communication tool.  It gives a great deal of information in an extremely easy-to-read format.  Therefore, we should put it right at the top. Johntex\talk 19:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe I wasn't clear enough. I'm simply saying that a well-written lead section coupled with an infobox or two will present more information in a single screen than the template would coupled with whatever else is visible. The sheer size of the template bumps everything else down, so you're artificially limiting the information a reader can access in a quick viewing. A good lead section will include everything that's in the template and a whole lot more. That's why I wouldn't support bumping it down in undeveloped articles -- they tend to not have completed lead sections. But in developed articles, the lead contains far more information than what's given in the template, and so you can get more information in one screen without the template than with it. A well-written lead makes the template a useful addition instead of the keystone of the game summary. JKBrooks85 16:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It should go at the top. It's why it's called a "Header". But more so, presents a game summary at the top and consistent presentation (hence why we developed a season page layout!). I've seen it in other places and it always looks silly and out of place to me. I refute the argument it takes up 1/3 and that Wikipedia takes up 1/3 so there's little else for the reader to see. 1/3 is a lot of room for text and the start of an infobox alone, but Wikipedia doesn't take up 1/3. Show me a screenshot before I'll believe that. If there is/are duplicate information in this and the infobox, it should be removed from the infobox for clarity and condense information. So, keep it at the top. We can discuss reducing the size if needed. I am the template designer, for what that's worth. MECU ≈ talk 18:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for creating it, btw. It's really a useful tool. I'll get a screenshot once I get home from work. JKBrooks85 18:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Here's the screenshot. It was taken at 1024x768 on Windows XP, using Mozilla Firefox. Admittedly, at higher resolutions it isn't as big a problem, but 1024x768 is a pretty widely-used resolution, particularly by elderly users. JKBrooks85 01:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, would anyone mind if I put in an RFC on this? I'd like to get as many opinons as possible (especially disinterested ones) so we're not overlooking anything. JKBrooks85 18:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The RFC is a good idea; it would be nice to hear more opinions. Anyhow, what about adding a contract link to the header? If a reader finds it overwhelming, they can contract it to reduce some of the space it takes up.  Blue  Ag09 (Talk) 19:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Great idea! Is that possible, MECU? JKBrooks85 19:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that box is awesome. It is really useful and it should go right at the top of the article so it is the first thing seen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GTBuzzer (talk • contribs) 19:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * 800x600 is 25% of users, 1024x768 is 50%. My guess is that 95% of readers who visit these pages know about NCAA football, and would like the template since it quickly conveys info when you know what you're looking at.  These people also probably run higher resolutions.  Basically people like us.  A small percentage of readers don't know much about american football, and would probably be better served with the lead paragraph at the top.  Probably the same people who have low resolutions.  I guess it depends on who we want to serve.  I've kind of convinced myself that the template is useful at the top.  The one thing I don't like is that it just doesn't seem standard practice to me.  When I visit a page that has the template at the top, it doesn't look right to me.  I've gotten used pages looking a certain way (normal text and then TOC, with infobox on the right).  Above someone mentions other templates that are placed at the top, but they aren't the same kind of template.  They're meta information about the state of the article, not article specific summaries.  Are there any other templates like it?  I'd like to look at them and see how they do it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peregrine Fisher (talk • contribs) 01:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

(reset indent) So people like it. I've seen many thousands of WP pages, and we're creating something new with this template. Is NCAA football so special that it needs different formatting from the other 2,000,000 articles we have? I think the answer is no. Let's extrapolate what using this template means to other articles. Should war/battle articles have a template at the top that list casualities? Probably not, that kind of info goes into the infobox. Should university articles have templates that list their cities and enrollment at the top? Again, that info goes in the infobox. TV shows could have templates at the top that list major characters and ratings. Basically, every major category of article could have a template at the top, but instead we put the info in the infobox and lead paragraphs. Articles on football games are a new phenomenom so they haven't been scrutinized, but there's now way that they can get their own WP:Manual of Style guidelines that allow strange stuff like templates above the lead. It looks like there are enough people who like the template (and frequent this page) to keep it for now. Instead of a temporary solution of ignoring the problem, we should just solve it. My first guess is that we include quarter scores in the infobox, and whatever other info the template has that the infobox doesn't have. Either that, or all the templats will be removed at a later date by people who know less about the subject than us. It's a no brainer, unless we think that using the templates for as long as we can (1-2 years at most) is the best thing to do. Anyways, if you don't agree I would like to hear why you think that it isn't inevitable that these templates will be prohibited from being at the top of the article. - Peregrine Fisher 06:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * We are not creating anything new here. We have had this template for over a year and it has gone on the top of many articles, read and edited by many people, during that time.  Not a single editor or reader has complained that they have not been able to figure out how to scroll down to find the introductory paragragh.
 * This is a pretty standard layout even off Wikipedia. Many sports articles/websites report similar information. and not jsut college football.  The same template could be used with small modifications by other projects such as WikiProject:Baseball.  Instead of looking to remove or change the template, we should be looking to spread its usage.
 * There is no problem here, so there is no reason to "solve" anything. Your "solution" would lessen the utility of this template and hence make the article harder to understand at a glance.  Wikipedia evolves as people come up with good improvements.
 * This template is an improvement, and we've been using it successfully for quite some time. Also, please note that some of these single game articles, such as 2006 Alamo Bowl, have been made GA status.  Some, such as 2005 Texas vs. Ohio State football game have been nominated for deletion (and kept).  So, it is not like we have these articles hidden away somewhere.  The layout has been accepted by the community as a whole. Johntex\talk 15:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * John, calm down a little; you're sounding a bit defensive and owny. Remember consensus can change. The issue is this template does break standard article style which places article text explaining the subject first at the top of the page. The template is a conceit based on a traditional horizontal scoreboard and the assumption that a sports-related article makes the scoreboard appearance ok. As it happens, for some of these notable single games, the score tells you nothing about the notability of the game; Trinity-Millsaps is a case in point as it's not the score or teams or coaches that mattered, but rather that there were 15 laterals. That game particularly needs text first. Also, the current template as it is has quite a bit of redundancy.  I'm pretty sure the columnar infobox (as a sidebar) evolved so that text and highlighted summary information can co-exist at the top of the page. How about we look at a compromise that can incorporate a similar scoreboard look into the vertical format of the infobox. Here's a mockup. <span style="font-family:arial, sans; color:#EF6521;">AU <span style="color:#000063; font-family:arial, sans;">Tiger  » <span style="font-family:arial, sans; font-size:x-small;">talk 17:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think I need to calm down at all, I am very calm. I don't think my comments are "owny" either.  I did not create the template.  Never-the-less, I apologize if I came off as un-calm or owner.  That is not my intent.  My intent is merely to emphasis that I am adamantly against changing the current paradigm of placing the template at the top of the articles.  This is where the template does the most good and that is where it should remain. Johntex\talk 19:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I may not agree with you, but I definitely agree that you've been civil and helpful through the entire argument. JKBrooks85 20:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for being open-minded; did you look at the mockup at all? It conveys the same information while taking up less space. <span style="font-family:arial, sans; color:#EF6521;">AU <span style="color:#000063; font-family:arial, sans;">Tiger » <span style="font-family:arial, sans; font-size:x-small;">talk 20:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I like it, especially if we can integrate it with a template like Template:Infobox CollegeFB Bowl. A combination of the two would be applicable for every single-game college football article, it'd look nice, and it'd help make all the college football articles consistent. JKBrooks85 20:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for proposing a new version. I looked at it with an open-mind and I still prefer the original.  There is no reason to shove the template off to the right-hand side.  It is most visible at the top and it is most useful at the top.  The top is the best place for it.  Any reader who prefers to read the text is not going to have any problem doing so. Johntex\talk 19:40, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment was requested at Wikipedia policy, so I am here. This is the first I have seen of this template, and I do not think that it should be at the top of the article. It is so large as to push the textual introduction off the first screen of the browser. As a properly written article defines the subject in the first sentence, this shold be on the first screen. Readers should not have to scroll down to find out what an article is about. I can think of several ways that a reader unfamiliar with NCAA football would come upon one of these articles. The most obvious is the Random article link. Football players also have lives beyond their college careers and there are many former players who have prominence beyond there college careers. (Gerald Ford, Steve Largent, and J. C. Watts come to mind off the top of my head). Articles on these players can very easily contain links to individual games that may be followed by people only or mostly familiar with the player's later career, and who are not familiar with college football. Dsmdgold 16:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * A show/hide collapse solution could be possible, but arguing over the initial collapse state would leave us nowhere. And if someone has to set hide once, it'd be nice if they could do it once and then anytime they encounter a page with this template, it would stay that same state (with a cookie-like setting perhaps). I know that is impossible, but I'm trying to think outside the box. Also, the screen shot provided above of the 10xx X 7xx screen size shows that most users do not have to scroll down to start reading the article, so that is a moot point now. I like the "mockup" design and layout provided by AUTiger, but it seems like we'd have two infoboxes going down the side that seems odd to me. I agree with Johntex that this could be easily expanded/modified so other sports could use something similar at the top of their articles. Further input by a much wider group would be needed to determine if it should become a standard for sports on Wikipedia to include such an item though. MECU ≈ talk 21:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * What do you think about combining the mockup design with an infobox along the lines of Template:Infobox CollegeFB Bowl? That would create an infobox that would contain everything in your design, fit neatly along the right side of the page, and save space to boot. It'd be applicable to every single-game college football article (even the bowl games), and we'd be even further ahead on standardization than we are now. How about it? JKBrooks85 21:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I certainly think that some sort of right hand info box would be preferable. Ideally we should not be striving for a consistent look just within the NCAA football articles, but across the entire encyclopedia. In most fields the right hand info-box is the standard. As a thought, having a standardized info-box across all team sports would be a good thing, if it is possible. Dsmdgold 23:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * From a very outside view of someone who has looked at so few of these articles (over the last year?) I never even noticed this template. It is pretty drastically different than the other article's layout. It may be useful information, but I think a consistent, encyclopedic style is important. A stock ticker might be useful on NASDAQ, or flight delay information on Delta, but they aren't there. I feel like people who want a extremely quick view of sports games would be better served by espn or something similar. Not that this information shouldn't be provided, but it should be provided in an encyclopedic context, like all the other information available. - cohesion 16:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the comparison to a stock ticker or a flight delay status is not a good analogy. In those two cases, they are displaying information that is only current as of a particular moment in time.  In contrast, the single-game header is portraying historical information which will always be a true reflection of what happened in that particular game.
 * If we were putting the single game header on top of season articles, or team articles, or university articles, then your analogy would be valid. That is not the case, however. Johntex\talk 19:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * As a regular and long-time and in-depth editor the Manual of Style, and I can say quite firmly that yes, the MOS's position is that, aside from disambiguation headers and the like, the lead paragraph as described at MOS is expected to be the first thing in an article and that it is stylistically very un-Wikipedia to make weird special exceptions to this for one random topic like US college football's "single games". Wikipedia has a widely and rather (though not 100% perfect) consistently implemented system of right-hand side infoboxes to present summarized tabular information.  We do not need a second system to present similar information in a different way, that interferes with the reader accessing the lead paragraph.  I stress the word "access" here too, as in "accessability" - inserting artsy tables of sportsgeek details before the main content is a major disservice to users dependent upon screen reader software. If necessary, upgrade the relevant infobox(es) to handle additional details that a consensus of focused editors of American collegiate football articles (i.e. the relevant WikiProject&#91;s&#93;) consider to be crucial, and avoid creating a new entire class of template structures that do things in ways that are not done in any other type of article here, or users will rapidly become confused and even irritated.  WP has a very, very consistent user interface for quite solid usability reasons. PS: The template in question, aside from using visual features like cute but grossly pixellated rounded corners that clash strongly with the rest of WP's design aesthetic, is more like a navbox or succession box in nature, and thus belongs at page bottom like all other such templates, to the extent it cannot simply be obviated with an improvement to right-side infoboxes. I don't mean to knock the work that has been done on it to present summarized, useful information, but I think far too much time has been spent on this template to make it "cool" by someone or other's estimation, instead of making it truly useful within the Wikipedia context. The coding work that has been done to make it useful can be ported to infoboxes or navboxes, and the coding work done to make it "pretty" but clashing has been misplaced effort.  Anyway, the MOS is pretty clear about this: The lead is the lead; it is not the kinda-lead that can optionally come after a bunch of  SCREAMING-HUGE FONT  claptrap.  :-/  —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 12:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC) (PS: Lest anyone be confused about this, I should note that while infoboxes typically come before the lead in the source code, they are float:right in CSS, which takes them out of the normal document flow, and thus in screen readers they are not in fact "before" the lead at all.  This is not the case with the template in question. It will appear before the lead in the rendered code, just as will a DAB template, which in that case is intentional. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 12:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC))
 * Your only complaint seems to be that it doesn't comply with the MOS, and you seem to imply that the MOS is an unchangeable document, which is false. If we were to include a template such as this on every single-game article for every sport, then it would be the standard and not just an "artsy table of sportsgeek details", but the standard. Further, you seem to also imply that Encyclopedias must be standard boring text presented in the standard encyclopedia way. We aren't paper and doing such things perhaps could improve the overall ascetics of an article to invite the reader in closer. There is no "standard of what an encyclopedia article must look like." Welcome to Wikipedia where we redefined that. Lastly, I AGF'ed here, but including some of the terms you choose to are quite inflammatory (I quoted one already) whereas choosing different words would have been better to keep the debate from turning hot. Just a little feedback to help you in the future I hope. The only valid argument you had was for screen readers, for which seeing how a screenreader would interact with it would be useful. Can anyone do this? MECU ≈ talk 14:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You're not reading what I wrote, then, since I raised many more issues than MoS compliance. Wikipedia does in fact have standards for what articles should look like. WP:MOS and its subpages go into this in great detail in many, many way, as do Guide to writing better articles and various other documents. The "Wikipedia will be boring without this" argument you raise is a red herring, since Wikipedia has tables, charts, illustrations and other "not just boring text" features, which are pretty well standardized and consistent at this point.  I agree with whoever above suggested that you sound WP:OWNish about this.  Please stop taking this personally. No one is saying that the information presented is not important in its context, only that this particular presentation of it doesn't work well on Wikipedia.  That said, I apologize if I was inflammatory; someone else said that about a CfD I filed the other day. If I hear from two different editors in two different XfDs that I need to moderate my XfD tone, I take that to heart, and I will endeavor to be a little more sensitive in the future. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 22:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You want to brush off the violation of the MOS as no big deal, but really, there should be some compelling reason for any exception. I've already shown that a similar look and feel can be done in an infobox and convey the same information more efficiently. The only objection to that so far is that JohnTex "prefers" the wide scoreboard style at the top; and his, yours, or anyone else's personal preference really isn't a good reason. If an infobox can do the same job, more efficiently, where is the compelling argument to keep it at the top and carve out an exception to the MOS? <span style="font-family:arial, sans; color:#EF6521;">AU <span style="color:#000063; font-family:arial, sans;">Tiger  » <span style="font-family:arial, sans; font-size:x-small;">talk 18:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * My two cents: I think this template should be rewritten when practically every other infobox on Wikipedia is placed in a column to the right side of the page (see WP:IBT). This template takes up the space normally reserved for article message boxes, such as cleanup templates, deletion templates, and dispute templates. There should be some sort of general layout consistency here. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 20:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * So the template is bad for disabled people and doesn't follow our manual of style. On the other hand, some people like it.  Seems like a no brainer.  We should just put whatever relevant info we want in the infoboxes and remove these templates. - Peregrine Fisher 21:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * This template is being considered for deletion at Templates for deletion/Log/2007 November 23. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 22:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd encourage everyone to vote keep on this. Even though I'm against putting it at the top, I still feel that it's a valuable addition to our toolkit here. JKBrooks85 (talk) 16:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

LSU article naming
User:SportsMasterESPN keeps moving the 2007 LSU Tigers football team article to a new name. I have asked him repeatedly to keep it as 'LSU' and not 'Louisiana State' but I can't revert it again because of the 3RR. Please see my comments on Talk:2007 Louisiana State Tigers football team. I would like a final determination made so we can put this to rest. Thanks. Seancp (talk) 20:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd personally go with whatever's in the university's style guide or the latest football media guide. JKBrooks85 (talk) 05:11, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Template:NCAAFootballSingleGameHeader up for deletion
This has been discussed at length above, but not for a few weeks and since then the template was put up for deletion. Since it has been up for two days here and only four editors have participated I thought I should bring it to some of the active editors working here since a discussion is going on right now about how it could be redesigned and many of the editors here work with the template. Phydend (talk) 18:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I also mentioned that TfD up above, in the original discussion, which is still at least somewhat ongoing. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 22:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

New Single-Game Infobox

 * This TfD looks destined to finish successfully. So, in the meantime, we should work on a replacement that fits the normal Infobox style guidelines before the current one gets deleted that way we can salvage any and all information currently in the infoboxes. Converting this to a normal infobox shouldn't be too difficult. The center column in the current design would remain at the top then the home team information (currently on left of template) would be next followed by away team information. If I can get the time, I'll try to work on a design but hopefully somebody else can.↔<span style="font:bold 11px Verdana,sans-serif;">NMajdan &bull;<span style="font:9px Verdana,sans-serif; color:#000;">talk 22:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd like to work on a new model, based around the single-game Bowl infobox. I think we can get one going. I'll send out some emails and see if we can't get something going. JKBrooks85 (talk) 03:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've created a mockup of an alternative, based on Nmajan's design of the single-game college bowl infobox. Please check it out and let me know what you think. It's still a really rough draft right now. JKBrooks85 (talk) 16:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I like his design and will be working on coding it in my userspace.↔<span style="font:bold 11px Verdana,sans-serif;">NMajdan &bull;<span style="font:9px Verdana,sans-serif; color:#000;">talk 17:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't forget to make it OT friendly. CJC47 (talk) 17:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * OT? What's that? JKBrooks85 (talk) 17:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Overtime?↔<span style="font:bold 11px Verdana,sans-serif;">NMajdan &bull;<span style="font:9px Verdana,sans-serif; color:#000;">talk 18:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Good point. For something like those seven-overtime Arkansas games, it could get a little tricky. JKBrooks85 (talk) 18:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I think I've got a pretty good working copy up at User:Nmajdan/Test. I made a few small changes to your design, but not much (namely, the format of the rankings). Hopefully, we'll also be able to get rid of the CollegeFB Bowl template since this template will work for bowl games or regular games. Let me know what you think.↔<span style="font:bold 11px Verdana,sans-serif;">NMajdan &bull;<span style="font:9px Verdana,sans-serif; color:#000;">talk 19:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Awesome work! I filled out one on the page directly below yours as a test. Just a few things came to mind:
 * Do we need a "year" call right below the date?
 * Should we re-include the broadcasters and national anthem?
 * The types are a little difficult — wouldn't it be easier to just have a plaintext "nickname" category?
 * Can you blow up the main title a little bit? Maybe 2-5pts should do it.
 * JKBrooks85 (talk) 20:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * A year call below the date? Can you be more specific? The broadcasters and anthem are still there, but the parameters are blank and thus are left off the template. They are still in the code, though. What to you mean the types? I'm trying to use all the same parameters as the original infobox which will make the transition easier. Also, I like the way it is handled now. The team's short name is used in more than one spot, for instance. Yeah, I can make it bigger. Just bear in mind some game names are pretty long.↔<span style="font:bold 11px Verdana,sans-serif;">NMajdan &bull;<span style="font:9px Verdana,sans-serif; color:#000;">talk 21:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Third line, right below the date, there's a call for a year — I don't see it displaying anywhere. I do see the announcers now — thanks for pointing that out. I must've been blind to miss that. As to game names, if you think that they'd be too long, is there an alternate way we could display it? I just thought that the example I came up with looked a little orphaned, but I think you're right — something like "Mississippi State vs. University of California Berkley" would probably be too long. JKBrooks85 (talk) 21:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * When can we start using this template in articles? I'm anxious to include it in the 2007 SEC Championship Game article! Seancp (talk) 22:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I would say if you want, go ahead and use the regular template that is up for deletion. I don't want to replace the current one until the TfD completes. I've designed the replacement to make the transition between the two as smooth as possible. I'll probably work on the documentation tomorrow for it.↔<span style="font:bold 11px Verdana,sans-serif;">NMajdan &bull;<span style="font:9px Verdana,sans-serif; color:#000;">talk 22:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Very impressive. I'm sure someone will complain it is too wide, but I have seen a handful of other infoboxes this wide (and infodense) and they seemed okay in their contexts. So, great job!  And kudos back, ultimately, to the creator of the original template, which while problematic for a couple of reasons, obviously influenced this one greatly. PS: I hope this helps demonstrate that XfD processes are not necessarily destructive. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 01:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

New design implemented
I have implemented the new design so I ask that everybody take a look at articles that use this template and make sure that the template is working in all situations (always hard to test). Some things to look out for, the <tt> </tt> is a required field and its missing on most instances so this field will need to be populated. Also, this template was designed to deprecate Infobox CollegeFB Bowl so on bowl games articles, they will have two infoboxes. Delete the Bowl template and add the appropriate data to the GameHeader template. Thanks↔<span style="font:bold 11px Verdana,sans-serif;">NMajdan &bull;<span style="font:9px Verdana,sans-serif; color:#000;">talk 21:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, to make updating the old design easier, I have added to the template documentation just the fields that are new here.↔<span style="font:bold 11px Verdana,sans-serif;">NMajdan &bull;<span style="font:9px Verdana,sans-serif; color:#000;">talk 21:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Fantastic work. I've added it to 2006 Chick-fil-A Bowl, and it looks great. JKBrooks85 21:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)