User talk:Dirtlawyer1/sandbox

PROPOSED REVISED VERSION OF TEMPLATE:INFOBOX COLLEGE FOOTBALL PLAYER

This ongoing discussion is transcluded from User talk:Dirtlawyer1/sandbox. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to this discussion.

The foregoing discussion regarding this template was started in a user sandbox (see here), and transcluded to this talk page on February 20, 2015, in order to give all concerned editors the opportunity to participate.

Please feel free to comment in the subsections below reserved for General Comments and Parameter-Specific Comments. Thanks.

General reactions and comments

(This section reserved for big picture conceptual comments, etc. Parameter-specific comments below, in order to keep the discussion organized. Thanks. DL1)

• In general, this looks good. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:37, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
• I have nothing to add, nice job!--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:37, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
• Looks pretty good to me, nice work Dirtlawyer1.--Yankees10 19:26, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
• Have been busy over the past few weeks and haven't been able to reply here but I did take a look at it - looks good to me! Great work. Connormah (talk) 03:35, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
• As someone who likes consistency so when I see a new article I know what to expect. I think this is an excellent proposal. UCO2009bluejay (talk) 04:00, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
• I'm all for it. Looks much better. Bsuorangecrush (talk) 20:15, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
• I like it – it looks much, much better! Nice work! Corkythehornetfan (Talk) 22:37, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
• Perhaps there should be a space for their coaching career and nickname, and years/teams looks a bit nicer than the pastschools parameter. Otherwise it is an upgrade. Cake (talk) 18:54, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

• @MisterCake: This infobox will only be used for (1) current CFB players, and (2) former CFB players who never played pro football or coached in college or the pros. Former players who coached in college and/or the pros will continue to use either Infobox college coach or Infobox NFL player, as appropriate. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:06, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

• I wonder how it will work for those who only coached with the school which he famously played for. (e.g. Bill Spears; Henry D. Phillips) or those who were only ever assistants. (e.g. Herschel Caldwell) Lots of assistants are better known as players. Though I grant it seems to be consistent elsewhere, say with Chris Leak. Cake (talk) 19:17, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

•  Like Looks good to me. I quite like it! —  dainomite   23:16, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
• Well done. I really can't think of anything to add. JohnInDC (talk) 19:27, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
• A question - will the template style be altered to make it more in line with the other football player/infobox templates? (invisible column dividers, smaller text) I think the code could use a bit of work (infobox is a bit imposing over the article as it is now with the large text and colors). At the very least, perhaps the text size can be reduced, like the baseball infobox? Connormah (talk) 05:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

• @Connormah: It's exactly these esoteric differences that become a burden to fix and maintain when projects reinvent the wheel. It's best if we can avoid a "not invented here" mindset and share and reuse others' hard work and wisdom, where feasible. This involves identifying the differences, and seeing if there are technical reasons why different implementations need to be maintained. See my examples below.—Bagumba (talk) 23:21, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

• Bagumba, we are facilitating the conversion from Infobox college football player to Infobox NFL player by sharing the same parameter names and order for the first 18 parameters. Beyond that, college football and pro football are different varieties of the sport that are distinguished by different circumstances, traditions, history, players, coaches and, most importantly, different fan bases. There is no reason why CFB players should not have a visually different navbox from NFL players -- other than the present obsession with merging templates for related subjects into ever larger, ever longer, ever more complex templates that typically and erroneously invoke inappropriate parameters for particular uses. We want something that works for CFB players, not something that can also be used for pro players. We don't want inappropriate draft parameters, inappropriate debut and final year parameters, or to repeat the same mistakes with stats, etc. The differences between college and pro ball are real and substantial, and we should not attempt to sandwich 1910 CFB All-Americans into the same template with 2014 NFL players. They are different animals, and there is no policy or guideline that requires that college and pro football players must use identical infoboxes. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:56, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

• "there is no policy or guideline that requires that college and pro football players must use identical infoboxes": Likewise, Dirtlawyer1, there is no reason they cannot share implementations, either, if it makes sense. Please note that I said we could reuse "where feasible", and also that we need to determine "if there are technical reasons why different implementations need to be maintained". As you said in your edit summary when you removed visual examples from this page: "move example infoboxes to graphics and design talk page: that discussion has not opened yet!" I'm sure you are equally prepared to refrain from design discussions on your part as well. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 06:50, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

• @Connormah: No decisions have been made regarding the graphics and design yet, but I intend to propose text 90% the size of main body text, a reduction in the width of the navbox (part of the current problem is forcing both height and weight onto the same line), and limits on the number of lines of text in the "highlights" section. That having been said, graphics and design will be subject to a second phase discussion after this first phase has determined which parameters we're adding and which parameters we're deleting. Everyone seems to agree what we needed to add death date and death place parameters, which I believe was your original concern. If we're going to make this into a "lifetime" infobox, it's kinda of tough to do so without those two. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:26, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

• I'm glad there's agreement that it should be easier to transform the infobox from a college player to a pro player. However, is there really "distinctive appearance and graphics to visually distinguish American college football players and American professional football players"? I dont think there is much. I've done a quick mockup of Jadeveon Clowney's infobox 1) As it was on May 9, 2014 (before he was a pro) with Template:Infobox college football player, 2) as it would have looked for him in college with a few tweaks of Template:Infobox NFL player, and 3) as it currently looks with his pro data in Infobox NFL Player.
  I've omitted "major" for now, see my comments below, but they can be added in if needed. The two templates dont seem all that different, either functionally or visually, to be burdened with needing to switch from one to the other when a player turns pro.—Bagumba (talk) 10:10, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

• Bagumba, this discussion is to discuss the parameters to be included, not the graphics and design (yet). First, what parameters t include; second, how the new graphics and design will appear. Please do not pre-empt the process by jumping ahead. I have moved your examples to the second phase talk page, here -- a discussion which we have not yet opened. We can discuss your examples in greater detail when we're ready to present the proposed new graphics and design for the revamped template. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:51, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

• To be fair, Counselor, the heading of "PROPOSED REVISED VERSION OF TEMPLATE:INFOBOX COLLEGE FOOTBALL PLAYER" seemed predisposed to reusing Template:Infobox college football player. Perhaps we should call this "Player infobox requirements for WikiProject College Football" if we wanted this to be clearly independent of implemention.—Bagumba (talk) 01:05, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

• Fair comment. It's a process, and WP:CFB has done these "mini RFCs" in the past with great success in getting all of our troops on board with major changes and standardization. We're pinging all of the active WP:CFB member editors on their own user talk pages, and we're giving everyone the opportunity to have their say as to what should be included, and what should not. Frankly, my thinking has already evolved based on comments from Connormah, Jweiss11, MisterCake, TonyTheTiger, WikiOriginal-9 and yourself. I am increasingly in favor a lean infobox that is nevertheless tailored to college football, and not professional football, and that means excluding certain parameters of Infobox NFL player. But my opinion is one among the WP:CFB herd, and all parameters are going to be determined by majority !vote (hopefully unanimously, or nearly so) at the conclusion of the first phase. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:34, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

[Three examples of existing Template:Infobox college football player, including revisions, have been moved to User talk:Dirtlawyer1/sandbox3, pending the opening of the second phase of this discussion regarding the new graphics and design of the revamped template. Thanks.]

Aside: One of the examples were with the actual Template:Infobox NFL player, another with a modified version of the NFL template. Not that we are jumping to design yet.—Bagumba (talk) 02:02, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

• Generally, this looks pretty good. Obviously, the big issue here is conformity and ease of conversion with Infobox NFL player, as 95% of the time this box will wind up being switched out for that one at some point in time. Ejgreen77 (talk) 04:25, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

• @Ejgreen77: For current players, that is more or less true. The further back in time we go, however, the higher the percentage of college greats who never played in the NFL. Keep in mind that before 1920, pro football was considered a lesser version of the sport, and most college graduates could earn more money in a non-sports job through World War II. The NFL did not become a big-time financial success until the 1960s, and a lot of CFB players of great talent saw pro football as a diversion from their chosen post-college careers. No rookies were making big bucks until the 1960s, and then that was only the Big Names like Broadway Joe. The NFL/AFL bidding war had a lot to do with that. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:40, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Parameter-specific comments

(At the outset of your comment, please specify the numbered parameter/field to which you are referring. Thanks. DL1)

teamwebprofile: direct link to college team profile

[24]: teamwebprofile; I wonder about this one. What would the text display? I think we're better off with this and all other external links in the external links section at the bottom of the article. I'd like to see external links purged from the bio infoboxes across American football topics. An infobox should be about summarizing vital stats for the subject, not creating exits from Wikipedia. The baseball bio infobox sets a good example with no external links. Jweiss11 (talk)

Just as a note, the web profiles are usually outdated as a lot of them only go up to the player's junior year. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 21:05, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

@WikiOriginal-9: True. Many of the athletic departments either do not update the player profiles after their senior year, or update them inconsistently. I am not wedded to this parameter, and I am content to leave its inclusion/exclusion to the consensus of WP:CFB participants. As Jweiss11 notes below, there is something to be said for a clean, streamlined infobox. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:51, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

• I would probably be inclined to exclude this from the infobox. Cbl62 (talk) 17:04, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

CollegeHOF: College Football Hall of Fame

[25]: CollegeHOF; I assume the idea here is to populate this with an ID (like on Infobox NFL player) to facilitate an external link? Again, here I'd like to see external links eliminated. Displaying the subject's year of induction would provide more value without asking the user to leave Wikipedia. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:46, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

@Jweiss11: My personal feeling is that we need to include a mini-banner for College Football Hall of Fame members; I am indifferent whether we include a direct link to the player's CFHOF individual profile or not. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:51, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

• For college football players, this is info of the highest order. I strongly believe it should remain in the infobox with a direct link to the player's bio on the CHOF web site. Cbl62 (talk) 17:06, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
• Was the HOF link removed? That's unfortunate. Cake (talk) 14:35, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

nonsportcareer: post-college non-sports career

[23]: nonsportcareer; I assume this would just say something like "Policeman". What if they had more than one career, this could probably just be talked about in the article anyway since you probably don't want citations in an infobox. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 21:05, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

WO-9, yes, that's the idea: a two to four-word description of post-college non-sports career. If they have two significant post-college occupations, then the BR hard line-break coding can be inserted to create a second line if both occupations are really significant. The idea being that this infobox is only going to be used for current college players or ex-college players who did not play pro ball or become coaches (in which case, other infoboxes would be used).

No, we do not want footnotes in the infobox, which, as a practical matter, means all facts in the infobox should be supported by prose in the main body text and inline footnotes. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:51, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Unless part of their notability comes from their non-sports career, it should be left empty. We don't need homemaker, real estate agent, or teacher in their unless they gained public attention for it. Adding to body is fine. Note if someone was more notable outside of their football career, they would use a more relevant infobox. See Mark Harmon, which drops his football infobox as a module into Template:Infobox person.—Bagumba (talk) 23:02, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Bags, we're going to disagree on this one. For notable CFB players from an earlier era, their life after the age of 21 or22 is noteworthy, even if it did not contribute to their notability as a college athlete. We include many parameters in inboxes that having nothing to do with the notability of a the subject because they paint a brief portrait of that person's life: birth and death dates, birth and death places, and in many cases, non-notable spouses and children, university degrees, etc. A 1925 consensus All-American's life was not over at the age of 22, and the infobox should reflect that. It's one of the data points (along with death date and death place) that is intended to make this a lifetime navbox for college greats. You do know that we have Heisman Trophy winners who never played pro ball, right? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:31, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

If our agenda is to promote college football players instead as student-athletes who become well-rounded, upstanding contributors to society, we might as well merge incorporate the slew of parameters from Template:Infobox person here to provide a more vivid portrait of their life. Do populate "religion", as it's always added to the personal section anyways.—Bagumba (talk) 21:00, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

• I would be inclined to exclude this from the infobox. It strikes me as peripheral for 99% of college football players. For individuals whose non-playing career is truly significant (e.g., Gerald Ford or John Wayne), a different infobox would be used in any event. Including routine post-football careers simply adds clutter to the infobox. Also, a great many of the historic football players who I have written about have had multiple post-football careers, so this could become very unwieldy. Post-football careers can be adequately covered in the body of the article. Cbl62 (talk) 17:09, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Infobox statistics?

[+]: It might also be a good idea to have stat parameters added if this is going to be used on former college players. (like statlabel and statvalue) It wouldn't really hurt anything. Also, it doesn't really matter but the espn link might be useful to keep since it's the only one that seems to be used anyway. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 21:05, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

WO-9, my initial reaction is to keep the revamped infobox clean and streamlined and not repeat the mistakes of Infobox NFL player, which is often far too long when photos, stats, and multiple optional parameters are invoked. Personally, I think we would do better to have a standard form of concise college stats table inserted in the main body text of the article. That being said, that's my personal opinion, and I'm just here to facilitate this discussion, not impose my personal preferences. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:51, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree that stats would add clutter. The average reader who is not a die-hard college football fan into analytics would not know how to put career stats into perspective. Is 873 career rushing yards good or bad? No problem with them in the body.—Bagumba (talk) 23:07, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

• Stats are one of the most important factors in displaying the notability of certain football players (especially running backs, QBs, place-kickers and receivers. I'd be inclined to add stats parameters, but keep it optional. Cbl62 (talk) 17:13, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

highschool: high school alma mater

[16]: highschool; How do we handle the location of the high school? It seems like it should say X High School on one line and then city, state on the next, but I don't see the parameter for this content.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:15, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

@TonyTheTiger: The subject's high school will be displayed using the pipelink format used by Infobox NFL player. We want to maximize compatibility between the revamped Infobox college football player and Infobox NFL player for easy conversion for those college players who play in the NFL. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:33, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

OK--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:42, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

• I've always thought the high school parameter in the infobox was peripheral. It's perfectly appropriate for the body but not core information of the type that needs to be displayed in the infobox. Key stats parameters are far more important IMO than what high school a person went to. I would favor eliminating the high school parameter. Cbl62 (talk) 17:15, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

highlights: championships, awards and honors

[18]: highlights; Do we roll awards, records and championships into highlights or give them separate parameters?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:15, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Honors, awards and championships will be listed in the highlights section using the same formatting as the highlights section for Infobox NFL player -- as they are presently supposed to be. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:33, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

OK--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:42, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Coaching history?

[+]: coaching history; How do we handle players that go on to become coaches?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:15, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

All coaches will continue to use either Infobox college coach or Infobox NFL player, as appropriate. This infobox is only for current college football players and ex-college football players who did not play pro football (and did not become coaches). Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:33, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

OK--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:42, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Nickname?

[+]: nickname; The gridiron football person template has a nickname field. This is most useful when dealing with college football players of the past. Players on say All-America teams were often listed by last name only, and you could be left rather lost without their nickname. For instance, R. V. Kerr would be better known as "Mush" Kerr. Clemson at one time had L. M. "Yen" Lightsey and F. B. "Bull" Lightsey which even the school in its own publications seem to have confused for one another. John Simms Kelly was known as "Shipwreck" Kelly; Edwin Hale was "Goat" Hale. This is not at all uncommon. Just about every player had one, and I'm sure others will know many, e. g. Germany Schulz. Consider the research lost if one were to confine their search terms for Schulz to those which list him strictly as Adolph and I think one gets why I bring it up. I would even consider adopting the practice of putting both in bold like with Bum Day or Dutch Stanley, showing how with some it's insufficient to simply title it with the nickname. I submit it's when both their name as Christened and their nickname is used in different contexts, or when they were known mostly by the nickname but their full name is idiosyncratic enough to be a better title. Cake (talk) 19:24, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

@MisterCake: I agree that old-timer nicknames are an important and colorful part of the history of college football. The question remains how best to present them. I see several options for dealing with historic nicknames:

1. Stated as an insert in the bolded name in the first sentence of the lead section, e.g., Clyde "Cannonball" Crabtree;

2. Separately stated and bolded in the first section of the lead section, e.g., Clyde Crabtree (November 3, 1905 – April 21, 1994), nicknamed "Cannonball Crabtree";

3. Stated at the top of the infobox in lieu of using the common name, e.g. use "Cannonball Crabtree" at the top of the infobox, rather than the common name, "Clyde Crabtree";

4. As a separately stated parameter in the infobox;

5. As one of the alternative names on the PERSONDATA template (does not display for readers, but is Google searchable for someone looking for "Cannonball Crabtree").

The only reason I hesitate to include a separate infobox "nickname" parameter is that I suspect it may encourage vandalism with the insertion of profanity, other inappropriate attempts at humor, and private nicknames not in wide circulation. What's your reaction? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:54, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

It's possible. Is there a history of such with say the Canadian Football League players or anything else with a nickname parameter? It's hard to provide a one size fits all here. Some were always referred to by their nickname and some just always in the football context and others less than that. I think option 3 would look odd to have as a rule but I could be convinced otherwise. One of 1 or 2 along with 4 is what I submit as a solution for the same reason as having his birth name in both the infobox and the body of the article. I would have to suspend judgment due to ignorance on option 5. Cake (talk) 03:11, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I think such a parameter would likely lead to cruft. The lead or body of the article can mention popular nicknames, but having a formal parameter in the infobox is only inviting a laundry list of infrequently used nicknames, which we would be lucky if they were actually verifiable. Pretty sure baseball, hockey, or basketball don't have such a field.—Bagumba (talk) 22:55, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Historic nicknames are part of the history and lore of college football, but more so for players of the 1920s, 1930s, 1940s and 1950s, than players of the modern era. My experience is informed by my editing of Olympic swimmer bios, and the infobox for swimmers does include a "nickname" parameter. What I have observed is that for the swimmers of the 1980s forward, it is more likely that somebody's high school buddy will add something crude or an inside joke rather than a noteworthy nickname in wide circulation. I haven't seen the same issue for CFL players using Infobox gridiron football person, but then again the only CFL player articles I edit are a handful of ex-Gators and former All-Americans. Like Bagumba, however, I fear "cruft" accumulating with the nickname parameter based on my experience with recent swimmers. As for PERSONDATA, I'll explain that on your user talk page; it's a digression here. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:53, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

As a possible alternative, you could make the nickname a hidden parameter so it wouldn't be abused. Just weighing all options. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 01:08, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Meh. Once people see it in one, I fear it'll proliferate like cockroaches.—Bagumba (talk) 02:33, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• @WikiOriginal-9: I thought of the same thing (hidden parameter}, but the problem with that idea is the fact that many if not most articles are created with cut-and-pastes from existing articles, thereby proliferating pre-existing parameters, usage and practice. I think I'm leaning toward Option 2 above, in combination with one or more redirects, and embedding the nickname in the PERSONDATA template. Of course, if the nickname is truly of historical significance ("The Four Horsemen"), its origins should also be supported with an explanation and footnote(s) in the main body text. There will also be instances where the nickname is also clearly the WP:COMMONNAME, and should be the article title. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:56, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• If a person is almost universally known by a nickname (e.g., Babe Ruth, Bubba Paris, Pee Wee Reese, Bill Clinton), his name should be listed as such in the infobox. If the nickname is not so prevalent, it can be dealt with in the lead and body of the article. I do not favor creating a special infobox parameter solely for nicknames. Cbl62 (talk) 17:22, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

• What do you say for those almost universally known by their nickname, but with their name as Christened more idiosyncratic than the nickname, thus making it a better article title for disambiguation purposes? For example Ashel Day or Oliver Kuhn. Then there are those who have a more common nickname as well as a sports-related one, like "Jack" McDowall being known as "Spindle Legs." Honest question so I may balance it all; don't mean to come off as combative. Cake (talk) 06:44, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

major: Academic major

[20]: major - These players are generally notable as athletes, and their major is trivial. We are not shills for the NCAA's promotion of student athletes. AFAIK, networks havent shown players majors during broadcasts for a decade or two. Even for athletes who became as or more notable outside of football, their alma mater is sufficient. I mean, Barack Obama doesn't have his major. If it's intent really is for people more notable outside of sports, the major should at least be grouped with their alma mater so their education info is together.—Bagumba (talk) 09:35, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Bagumba, the order of parameters as shown in the template does not necessarily correspond to the order in which they will ultimately be displayed in the infobox. Remember, we are trying to facilitate a cleaner conversion process for current players who play in the NFL (or Arena league), so that the first 18 parameters are common between the two templates. Conversion will involve cut-and-pasting the additional NFL parameters at the end of the CFB template (with some of the last CFB parameters removed and replaced). As for the "notability" of individual parameters, that's not the standard for inclusion. If it were, we could also delete height, weight, jersey number, birthplace, date of death, etc. This template is being re-tooled to serve CFB players, not pro players. There is a difference, and, yes, they are student-athletes. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:32, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean. Height, weight, jersey number are natural points of interest for football players, even if it seems trivial. Birthplace and date of death are standard for any bio in any domain, Wikipedia or not. Something being true, i.e. being a student-athlete, doesnt necessarily make it notable to readers. I maintain that college football players are most notable for their college and year of eligibility, which are related to their sports career, and not for their major for their generally non-publicized academic record. Again, we are not the PR dept for NCAA.—Bagumba (talk) 03:51, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

• College major is not high order information for football player infoboxes. It's frankly so peripheral (almost trivial) that I rarely even deal with it in the body of articles about college football players. I favor eliminating this from the infobox. I also agree with Bagumba that height and weight are signifcant points of interest for college football players. Parameters for height and weight do appear in the gridiron player infobox, are IMO important, and I think those parameters should be carried over here (as currently proposed in DL's sandbox). Cbl62 (talk) 17:26, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Pretty much the only time a player's academics are particularly notable is when he either is so challenged that he suffers some adverse consequence or is so gifted that he receives Academic All-America honors. If Academic All-America honors are bestowed, then that can be reflected in the "highlights" section of the infobox. Otherwise, save it for the body. Cbl62 (talk) 17:37, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

degree: College degree earned

[22]: degree - Similar to "major", if this stays, it should be grouped with their alma mater and major (major currently is displayed (too) prominently at the top of the infobox, away from the "college" field in "Career history".—Bagumba (talk) 09:35, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, the order of parameters as shown in the template does not necessarily correspond to the order in which they will ultimately be displayed in the infobox. Logically, major, degree (or class year for current CFB players), and university should probably be clustered together. Height and weight should be clustered. Championships, honors, awards should be clustered, with bowl games immediately following. Beyond that, it's all still to be determined in the layout and design phase of this discussion. The division between the career history and career information headers is awkward. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:52, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

• I am in agreement with Bagumba. I favor eliminating this parameter. See my thoughts on major which apply with equal force here. Cbl62 (talk) 17:28, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

bowlgames: College bowl games played

[19]: bowlgames Bowl games are a dime a dozen these days. Who doesnt make it? Don't need to see 2014 Foster Farms Bowl and the like listed. There's too many, and most people wouldn't recognize the ever-changing sponsor-named bowls. Might as well add conference championship games too if this is going in.—Bagumba (talk) 10:17, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Bowl games are an integral part of college football, Bagumba, and they have been for over 100 years. At last count, there are 128 Division I FBS teams, and 34 bowl games sanctioned by the NCAA, so half get invited to a bowl in any given season. For every Micron PC Bowl (the metaphorical Toilet Bowl), there is a CFP Championship Game, Rose Bowl, Sugar Bowl, Orange Bowl, Fiesta Bowl, Cotton Bowl, Peach Bowl, Citrus Bowl or Gator Bowl. It's one more element of college football that makes it different from NFL pro ball. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:02, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Editors can refer to List of college bowl games to see the roughly 30 less notable bowl games that will make the infobox less lean. Me thinks the box can do without the carbs from Famous Idaho Potato.—Bagumba (talk) 03:38, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I know you're blowing steam, but you do realize that less notable (and non-notable) players are likely to play in the Potato Bowl, right? Most of those guys are never going to have a stand-alone article until somebody creates one when they're drafted (if they're drafted), because they're only notable by virtue of having played one down in one regular season NFL game per WP:NGRIDIRON. We are tailoring to CFB players who are notable for being standout CFB players: we have over 1700 consensus All-Americans, about half of whom never played in the NFL in an era when pro football did not exist or they could make more money doing something else. And given that 7 bowls are part of the new CFB playoff, the number of significant bowls is a few more than four. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:14, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Being that infoboxes tend to have more cruft than less, the fact that these are not in the current implementation but Template:Infobox NCAA athlete is bloated with params (e.g. honors, records, championships, bowl_games, and tournaments) leads me to believe this was a rare conscious decision to exercise restraint (and rightfully so) on cruft. With our back and forth probably exhausting all discussion on this param, I think others can just !vote on this.—Bagumba (talk) 04:29, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

You lost me: what "rare conscious decision to exercise restraint" was that? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:06, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

A bowl field has existed in Infobox NCAA athlete since 2007. It was removed from Infobox college football player by User:BlueAg09 as far back as 2008 with edit summary "bowl games are rather irrelevant to list, and this field was previously removed". So either there has been a strong consensus for 6+ years to not have it, or we've suffered without this invaluable field waiting for a bold edit. I'll choose the former.—Bagumba (talk) 06:24, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

And of course I overlooked that it is actually in Infobox college football player currently. Striking irrelevant thought from above.—Bagumba (talk) 06:55, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, these are the only bios I found using Infobox college football that listed a bowl game played 2000 or earlier: Katie Hnida, Kirk Herbstreit, Sandy Stephens, Carlos Alvarez (American football), Robby Stevenson, Tonya Butler, Charlie LaPradd, Hameen Ali, Jason Vinson, Jeremy Borseth, Phil Tinsley, Crawford Mims.—Bagumba (talk) 08:53, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

• I favor eliminating this parameter. It can be dealt with in the body but is not core information about a player. Adding these (potentially four bowls to each player profile) creates undue clutter. If someone is the MVP of a bowl game (or something like that), I have no problem with that being referenced in the "Career highlights" section. Otherwise, keep it in the body of the article Cbl62 (talk) 17:32, 17 January 2015 (UTC)