Jump to content

Template talk:Infobox NFLactive/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Undrafted free agents

[edit]
Resolved
So will you implement this?►Chris Nelson 03:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If I may offer an opinion; I believe JMF is technically correct in that a player could apply for the draft in multiple years IF they never sign a contract with an NFL team (regardless of whether they are ever drafted). Bo Jackson is the example of a player who was drafted, did not sign and drafted again. Practically speaking however, the chance that a player will go undrafted, not sign a contract as a free agent immediately after the draft and wait until the next year's draft, is approximately zero. It would take an truly exceptional situation for a player's draft prospects to improve significantly by sitting out of football a year. And a significant improvement in draft status would be needed since both a player drafted late and a player signing as an undrafted free agent are going to be making league minimum if they make a team's roster, right?
That being said, I think it makes a lot of sense to include year as it is informative, but in a consistent format with the drafted players. e.g.
NFL Draft: 2006, Undrafted
Thanks, AUTiger » talk 03:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, forgot the template was protected.►Chris Nelson 03:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are we okay with the compromise as I most recently expressed it? I know I changed it to say "Undrafted" as opposed to your initial compromise that said "Not drafted" but since they essentially mean the same thing I feel like we should go with the one that is most commonly used (that being 'undrafted'). That cool?►Chris Nelson 04:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think just the wording of "undrafted" works fine. I don't see any real value in adding a year since a player could go several years without playing on a professional team (spent time in NFL Europe instead, member of a team's practice squad, etc.). RyguyMN 05:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Numbers

[edit]
Resolved

Result: No. will fall away for free agents. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  06:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New NFL.com - to use for stats?

[edit]
Resolved

Result: nfl.com has been added at priority #1. Other fields that are in place should be left; they will be hidden in results. In the event that a future consensus establishes that multiple sites are preferred, this will reduce the amount of work in "updating". Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  06:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Controversial Content removal

[edit]

{{editprotected}} As " {{#if:{{{undraftedyear<includeonly>|</includeonly>}}}|{{!}} ! colspan="2" {{!}} [[Undrafted athlete|Undrafted]] in [[{{{undraftedyear}}} NFL season|{{{undraftedyear}}}]]" is highly controversial, and one of the reasons for the recent edit wars, please remove it until a consensus can be established. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  06:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not "highly controversial." You're the only person that would ever be against it and you only are so for personal reasons. Deal with it.►Chris Nelson 07:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To elaborate - something is not highly controversial because one person says it is. In fact, everyone else that has discussed it here is completely fine with my edit. You are the only person in all of Wikipedia that has said they were against this edit - by definition, that cannot be "highly controversial." You are one person that objects and have yet to provide adequate reason. "Highly controversial" could not be farther from the truth, so the edit should stay.►Chris Nelson 07:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I, too, agree with you, Chrisjnelson, but only because of personal experiences. I have made several edits to many of the football articles (check my edit history from yesterday and Thursday) which Jmfangio said were contentious and edits that I knew they were disputed. He went so far as to revert me, eventually accidentally reporting himself for a 3RR violation on Dick Lane (American football). An edit isn't controversial just because one person disagrees with it. That's the issue I had with Jmfangio. You can't speak for everybody in the whole universe by saying that something is controversial or disputed. In fact, because of this, Jmfangio left this message in regards to my edits which only he believed was controversial:


It seems like this behavior can be viewed as assuming ownership and holding all articles hostage because he doesn't like an edit. All of a sudden, it's a crime to assume good faith and be bold. I don't understand how adding an important piece of information can be seen as controversial by anybody, to be honest. "Highly controversial" is when a huge group of people contest something. I must've been living in a cave for the past couple decades because I had no idea that "huge group of people" now means "one person". I don't see anywhere on Wikipedia that says that in order to make an edit, the entire universe must agree with it. Ksy92003(talk) 07:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again - please implement this - I don't agree with how it should be formated and as the three of us are obviously in heated debates - it should not be up to us to be the sole determinators of this information. Please review #Undrafted free agents and this edit RFC on Chrisjnelson for substantiation. This is a necessity in my mind and shows no support for one editor over the other. If their proposal is deemed appropriate by WP:CON then there is no harm in leaving it out. However, if it is deemed INAPPROPRIATE - then you are going to have a lot of broken templates. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  09:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's not a chance that anyone's going to fulfill this editprotected request when this template was just protected. Give this some time to cool off, and reach a consensus about future changes. Then feel free to re-enable the editprotected request. Cheers. --MZMcBride 15:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, Jmfangio, why do you oppose the inclusion of that parameter in the infobox? Why do you feel that isn't going to help improve the infobox? Does it not do less harm than good by including it? I mean all you've done is repeatedly say that this is controversial and that you disagree with it, but you haven't even mentioned why you disagree with it. It allows the infobox to include the important information of an NFL draft that a player wasn't drafted and was eligible for free agency. It's quite important for those guys who weren't drafted. To me, it appears that including that in the infobox code does far more good than harm. Ksy92003(talk) 16:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For example, three undrafted players had/have great careers: Kurt Warner, Priest Holmes, and Jake Delhomme. All of their articles say the school they went to, but not the year they entered the draft. Since these players are great athletes and had great careers in the NFL, the fact that they went undrafted is even more interesting, and needs to be mentioned. Ksy92003(talk) 16:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ksy92003 and Chris - I have no desire to engage you in any further discussion. You are both abussive, disrespectful and unwilling to politely discuss matters. MZM The point is that there was no consensus for inclusion (please read the section above), as such - it should not be included in a locked template. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  17:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not willing to politely discuss matters? So I imagined myself asking you (poliely, I might add) why you are opposed to including it? I imagined asserting my opinion in a quite polite manner? I'm the one trying to discuss this politely, and all you do is refuse to discuss it. Therefore, you are holding the template hostage by refusing to discuss with us. Ksy92003(talk) 17:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it seems someone has protected The Wrong Version. Editprotected requests are for generally for small changes (i.e., typo fixes, blatant errors), and sometimes they're used with larger changes, but only with consensus. Please do not re-enable the editprotected request until there is a consensus for change. You're also free to talk to the protecting admin, though I wouldn't wish this mess upon anyone, much less a fellow admin. Cheers. --MZMcBride 17:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need consensus for every edit on Wikipedia. I was "being bold", I added something that I knew enhanced the template with more info. If you don't want to discuss it, that's fine. But if you don't, you sure as hell can't keep on reverting it and any admin would tell you the same thing. Either discuss it or leave it alone.►Chris Nelson 19:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks MZM, it's a mess alright, and duly noted on the editprotect. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  19:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's no mess. The only problem is your presence. If you stopped with this insanity there would be nothing but peace and harmony in this entire situation. Funny, isn't it?►Chris Nelson 19:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of things

[edit]

This info-box needs some really bad help. There's two things that are absolutely ridiculous. "pfr / cbs / espn / si are used to link to an external link for the player's statics. Only one site can be used at a time. Null fields can be removed from the box." Why should only one link be used? What if someone wanted stats from pro-football reference? If both were available, the reader could chose. Sometimes people want to use nfl or espn because they have a fantasy league on those sites. Other people like pro-football-reference because it provides a helluva lot of information. This would also stop edits of people switching sites all the time.

The second thing that's really bad about this is the "Career Highlights and Awards No notable achievements" shouldn't be there at all. It's pointless space that needs to be removed if the player hasn't had any notable achievements. I like the old one much better where little known players have infoboxes without so much unneeded space on it.++aviper2k7++ 21:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, "National Football League Debut No regular season appearances" needs to be removed in the case where it is unknown or unclear when the players first appearance was.++aviper2k7++ 04:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thus we are at the crux of these discussions again. There are many different opinions; many of these express very legitimate concerns. This is not simply a matter of one article, it is a matter of thousands (or however many NFL players there acutally are - i don't know the number). Some of the issues have been raised with other infoboxes; so, it is hard to say that this infobox should be wholly unique. Before passing judgement on any of the arguments, you may want to take some time to read through the talk page. Some of the information is not really content related, but much of it is. If you focus on the content related issues, you will see that many people think very differently about how these things should be. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  05:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

aviper2k7 -
I'm very in favor of the debut thing being here. I was initially against it but it was Jmfangio's idea and it grew on me. It's actually quite simple to find out when a guy first appeared in a regular season game, and be 100% sure. All one has to do is look at a player's page on NFL.com. If he has a game listed for any given year, he played in that game. Even if he has no noticeable stats, he played. If you see a linebacker with no tackles or anything, he probably got in on special teams. If you see a punter with game(s) listed but no punts, he was likely a holder. But NFL.com does not put a game there if he didn't play. So that's how you tell. Are you cool with it now?►Chris Nelson 05:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As for the stats, there isn't an overwhelming group of people that care what stats are linked. But since NFL.com now has current and historical players I see no problem with just making NFL.com the standard. There's no law that we have to give people a certain amount of stat options from the get go. I for one plan to add NFL.com to all the player pages I come across, and I doubt anyone will really care enough to change that kind of stuff. If someone ever did, they could always raise the issue here.

Finally regarding the achievements thing, I think we do need to tweak this some. To get that "No notable achievements" thing to show up, you have to completely delete the field. The problem with that is, if an editor comes along and knows of an achievement that would be worth editing, he wouldn't know where to put it or what the field would be called. So I agree with you on this, something needs to change.►Chris Nelson 05:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The old one, the field was just for the bar, and you typed in either "yes" or "no" for the title bar. I think it can be put into a separate field and if it reads "no" then neither of the awards field or the title field will show up. If it reads anything besides "no" or isn't there, it will display, automatically "no know achievements" and achievements will most likely be added. I'm not too sure if I'd be able to edit this without screwing everything up.
As for the debut thing, it should definitely be there, but the problem occurs when someone doesn't edit that field or leaves it blank. It results in a message saying that the player hasn't played in a regular season game. It's just a safety net that really should be there.++aviper2k7++ 05:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're right about the highlights in the old infobox. That would be perfect for this. I don't know how to implement it, I guess we'll see what Jmfangio says about it.
Regarding the debut - what's the problem? We're intentionally leaving it blank for rookies and players that have not debuted so that it says that message? This is a good thing, I don't understand the problem.►Chris Nelson 05:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"No notable achievements"?

[edit]

Well, I was waiting for the other debates to cool down before bringing this up, but that could be a long wait.

I'm bothered a little by how the phrase "no notable achievements" becomes the default when no info is entered in the "highlights" field. I guess my issue is with the semantics: just because a player didn't win the Super Bowl MVP or the Maxwell Award doesn't constitute a lack of "notable achievement." I cite Joe Jurevicius as one of many examples: Homeboy is one of only seven NFL players to play in the Super Bowl with three different teams, yet his infobox brands him achievement-less.

I know it was discussed at length before, but can we re-open the discussion about the Highlights and Awards field simply not appearing when no info is entered in the highlights field? —xanderer 03:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the phrase does carry with it some undeserved negativity and insult. Perhaps maybe the section should just disappear altogether if nothing is entered?►Chris Nelson 03:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But actually, until another way is decided upon, and even after that actually, my advice would be this: if you see a player with "no notable achievements" in his infobox, go look up his bio and find one. Most of the time, he'll at least have an all-conference selection or something along those lines.►Chris Nelson 03:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Funny, I was just thinking that. After looking for other examples I see players with conference superlatives, and even high-school achievements listed (Daunte Culpepper). —xanderer 03:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah for the most part I try not to list high school stuff, unless it's really big. I would say Parade/USA Today All-American, or state player of the year. Any of that conference/league/area stuff I don't consider notable enough.►Chris Nelson 03:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it may need to be looked at on a case-by-case basis. If there's an article on someone who had/has a 20-year NFL career, the infobox doesn't need to talk about their HS awards. OTOH, it may be worth mentioning if there isn't anything else in there. --B 02:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If there's nothing in the achievements box, that section needs to disappear ... otherwise any stub that someone hasn't gotten around to filling out is going to say no notable achievements. --B 02:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Just remove the section from the infobox if nothing is entered into the highlights field. This is how other infoboxes treat information that is not entered into the template. It just doesn't show up. RyguyMN 04:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Height removal

[edit]

Just out of curiosity, why would someone be testing a removal of the height?►Chris Nelson 16:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder...

[edit]

I wonder why are there two templates used in the same time? Template:Infobox NFLactive/Template:Infobox NFLretired and Template:Infobox NFL player. --User:Louis Alberto Guel 20:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The latter is the older template. This is a new one we've created to replace it.►Chris Nelson 20:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Free agent colors

[edit]

I have an idea for the colors for a free agent.

  • LightSteelBlue (body color)
  • Black (font color)

 --Louis Alberto Guel 21:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why would we change it? I'm not really preferential to one color style over another for free agents. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  22:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flag Icon

[edit]

The US flag should not be the default flag icon. I think that this box should allow for the player's birth state flag to be used. --Cdman882 19:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All you do is add the country field and put it in.►Chris Nelson 22:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I put in the country field, and it inserts a flag of the world. What am I missing? --Cdman882 13:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You type whatever country he's from. See Ray Perkins (running back).►Chris Nelson 17:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Chris. I think the US born players' articles look nice with state flags, if the users would like to add them. Is there anyway we can change the country tab to country/state? I feel this adds to the overall aesthetic of the articles. --Cdman882 19:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Current position problem

[edit]

I'm trying to disambig safety in football articles. I've run across 2 bio articles (Rodney Harrison and Sammy Knight) that use this template. Following the instructions for the template, I select Safety (defensive back) from Category:American football positions. That results in Safety (defensive back) being visible instead of Safety being visible and linking to the article. Am I doing something wrong or is this a glitch? --JustAGal 19:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Use the field "currentpositionplain" rather than "currentposition." This will allow you to link it yourself. (Ex. Tra Battle)
Also, I have moved the article to Safety (American football) to keep consistent with other disambiguated football positions. (Ex. Fullback (American football) and Guard (American football).►Chris NelsonHolla! 19:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That did the trick! Thanks for the help! :-) --JustAGal 19:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Contract/Salary information?

[edit]

Would information on the players' salary/contract information be included in the template?↔NMajdan•talk 00:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently no field for that, and I'm not sure most people would prefer it.►Chris NelsonHolla! 01:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think that would be necessary--Yankees10 02:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move?

[edit]

I think (just my opinion) this template should be moved to Template:Infobox NFL active. I'm sure there's probably some reason it is the way it is now, but I don't see an obvious reason NFL and active should be merged together in the title. Thoughts?   jj137 (talk) 22:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This template is already on thousands of articles, there is no need to move it. The name is irrelevant.►Chris NelsonHolla! 23:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you. There are many infoboxs related to the NFL project that don't use spaces. ({{Infobox NFLretired}}, {{Infobox NFL PlayerCoach}}, {{Infobox SuperBowl}}, etc.) I would support the move. Even if the current infobox is listed in thousands or even millions of pages it wouldn't matter, since it would redirect the infobox parameters to the other template. --Pinkkeith (talk) 14:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Idea

[edit]

I feel that if that is now says "Professional debut" as opposed to "National Football League debut" that it shouldn't be titled "NFLactive." I think it should be like "Americanfootballactive" so that it won't so the slightest amount of bias towards one league if used an Arena Football League, Canadian Football League article, or any other pro league article. Crash Underride 18:35, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other Stat Lines

[edit]

Is it possible to add other stat pages to the infobox? I read the discussion above on this issue, and one question that was raised was this: "Well are there really things some provide that others don't? ►Chris Nelson 07:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)"
Pro-football-reference.com has a lot of stuff that nfl.com does not have, such as rankings (like each season in the top ten of almost any stat category, all-pro and pro-bowl appearances, etc.
I understand the result of the discussion was to ensure that nfl.com should get top billing, but I don't read the discussion as deciding to only use nfl.com, until the end when the result of the discussion was to show inly nfl.com. No one really argued against permitting more than one to be listed in the infobox. Is it possible tp modify the infobox to permit more than one stat listing?--User:2008Olympianchitchatseemywork 07:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing is that NFL.com is the only one that shows up when it's present, and every NFL player has an NFL.com link. Therefore, even adding other site stats to the infobox will never have then used. That's why I deleted them.►Chris NelsonHolla! 14:08, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With the edit they way I did it, it permits nfl.com and pfr.com to both show up. See Tony Romo as an example. I don't want to remove nfl.com by any means, but having pfr is also useful because it has other stats. Please weigh in at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Football_League#Other_Stat_Lines--User:2008Olympianchitchatseemywork 04:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Colors

[edit]

While it's cute to have the team colors used in the infobox, it causes accessibility concerns (for people with colorblindness, etc.) and provides an inconsistent layout to the site. Would there be any objection to removing the color options? --MZMcBride (talk) 06:35, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'd find a huge objection amongst NFL editors.►Chris NelsonHolla! 06:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What are the advantages to using team colors beside the obvious "it looks better"? --MZMcBride (talk) 07:04, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps nothing, but a lot of people like it.►Chris NelsonHolla! 08:01, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is not an adequate place for discussion of this subject because most editors have not been to/edited this template and therefore do not have it on their watchlist. The appropriate place to pose this question is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League. You will find a lot of opposition if you just remove the colors, so there needs to be a discussion for all to see first.►Chris NelsonHolla! 22:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, templates are discussed on their template talk pages. I don't see any objections here. If there continue to be no objections, I'll re-revert the changes. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:56, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would at least post a note at WP:NFL. There have to be very few of us who watch this page. I would not want the colors removed.--2008Olympianchitchat 09:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How many people edit/watch this template? A handful at best. You know what that means? It means there won't be much of a discussion for it. the WP:NFL talk page is the ONLY place to discuss this, because it's the place where you'll find the most NFL fans on Wiki and get the largest response. I'm not going to let any change like this happen to the template based on a discussion no one saw.►Chris NelsonHolla! 12:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I personally don't care about the colors but to me there helpful because I can go to per say Todd Lowber's player page and know he's on the Dolphins because of the infobox colors or I can go to Anthony Morelli's player page and know he's a free agent based on there being no colors. And to top it all off your changes would totally screw up Category:National Football League free agents, which automatically adds players with no colors in the infobox. But as I said I don't really care but I'd like them to stay for easier identification.--Giants27 TC 13:54, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I posted a note at WT:NFL yesterday. So far, I'm not seeing any strong reasons to not remove the colors. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you then deliberately avoiding reading the opinions expressed here? So far every editor who has weighed in here and at WT:NFL has preferred to keep the colors. Giants27 gave several good reasons to keep them, and I agree with all of them. According to the color-use guideline:
1. "Ensure that color is not the only way used to convey important information. Especially, do not use colored text unless its status is also indicated using another method." Here, the colors are used to indicate to which team a player belongs. This information is also conveyed in the article textually in more than part of the article, including the infobox itself.
2. For colorblindness, the guideline asks that editors "[e]nsure that the color combinations used in Wikipedia (infoboxes, navigational boxes, graphs, etc.) have an adequate contrast." That is what you should be asking to happen in the infoboxes, rather than the outright removal of the colors. There should be a text color for each team/background color that provides the appropriate level of contrast.--2008Olympianchitchat 00:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's no particular reason to use the colors, though. For example, the infobox for Barack Obama could use red, white, and blue, but it doesn't, for consistency. For sitewide consistency, we've generally chosen to use a light blue-ish tint. Using team colors is direct contrast with this trend. And the colors are only useful for identification if you know who the colors are associated with already. So I'm still not seeing any strong reasons to keep them in the infobox. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The United States is no an athletic team.►Chris NelsonHolla! 02:02, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, someone agreed with one of my points, that's a first :-).--Giants27 TC 02:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with everyone that says that the colors should be left on the template. The only reason given against having colors is that "it causes accessibility concerns for people with colorblindness". As Olympian already said above that "colors should not be the only way used to convey important information. and that the colors should have an adequate contrast." Looking at the player pages the colors do have an adequate contrast, and all the important information is also stated in text for example which team the player plays for. So what other reason do you have to remove the colors? Gman124 talk 22:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I stricked out my comment. Gman124 talk 15:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to the use of colors as they are in place right now. I don't see any reason to remove the colors. --Pinkkeith (talk) 22:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a guideline that prohibits the use of colors other than blueish tint? Colors are used on almost all of the college-athletic infoboxes as well, as in articles such as the featured list 2002 NFL Expansion Draft, where the colors were specifically addressed in the review process. --2008Olympianchitchat 05:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I personally like the colors — they offer a very quick way associating a player and team as soon as you pull up the page. I think that 2008Olympian does a great job of refuting those who cite "color blindness" as a reason against using colors. I personally haven't noticed any contrast issues, but if there are any it should be possible to be address them with the right color choices. Can any of the "con" folks here provide specific examples they feel are problematic?
I count myself among the colorblind ("chromically challenged"?), and I haven't noticed any issues, though obviously that is only from one spot on the broad spectrum :) of potential color-viewing limitations.
I'd like to edit the Infobox NFL PlayerCoach infobox to match the use of color on this template and the Gridiron football person infobox. If you have any specific objections to that proposal, please respond on that template's talk page.--Deejayk (talk) 18:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think that the colors should be used only if they conform with WP:COLOR. The Seattle Seahawks example below is a good example of an infobox out of compliance. All of the examples cited below are as well.--2008Olympianchitchat 21:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wholeheartedly concur.
The Seahawks have four team colors — why were the two least contrasting chosen for this purpose? For the Seahawks, I would suggest it should be white on "Seahawks blue" (or "Seahawks blue" on white). UPDATE: I have made the change that I described for the Seahawks. Next question: what about the "ALT" colors??? --Deejayk (talk) 20:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Color modification

[edit]

As I already stated above that colors should not be removed. However, I do believe they might need to be modified a bit to have a better contrast for colorblinded people. The following are the teams whose colors I think need to be changed....

the ones that I think really should be modyfied
ones I'm not sure about

There may be some problem for the color blind, so how about changing the text in all of them to white or black. --Gman124 talk 17:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm interested how do you think they should be changed.--Giants27 TC 22:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All the teams that I listed do have the color white as their team color right? (Though I may be wrong about all having the color white as the team color) So why not just replace the text with white letters since most of the teams have darker background color in templates. If you want to include all the colors, then maybe make them like how it is on the dolphins' players pages like Todd Lowber (which was given as a example above). The dolphins' pages have different coloring for sections to include the team colors, so I was thinking about proposing to do the same with all the teams that don't have good color contrast. So what do you think? Gman124 talk 23:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree with changing it so it had two (P.S. the Giants also have it).--Giants27 TC 00:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I like all the colors the way they are and support no changes. Where is this gigantic colorblind crowd complaining about the infobox colors?►Chris NelsonHolla! 01:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only things a colorblind person could not see in the infobox are the Team and the player's number, which can mostly be found in the article. Everything else in the infobox is black and white. A colorblind person isn't really missing out on that much. ~Richmond96 t • c 01:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quite frankly I just don't see the point in catering to an audience we haven't heard from at all. Until we have one colorblind person here complaining about this, why change anything?►Chris NelsonHolla! 01:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to change it either but wouldn't be completely opposed to it, but until we hear from colorblind people, we should leave it but for the future if these came up again and a colorblind person was involved in it then I could see changing it but for now let's just leave it alone.--Giants27 TC 02:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know any guideline against the use of colors, but color use guideline which Olympian pointed out above, does require that "that the colour combinations used in Wikipedia (infoboxes, navigational boxes, graphs, etc.) have an adequate Contrast." So why leave something that should be done now to be done in the the future. Gman124 talk 03:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I used this Firefox extension on the examples given and none of them pass the AERT Color Contrast Algorithm. Some of them have the proper luminosity contrast ratio if they were written in large text but they are not, and none of them pass the AERT standard for difference in brightness or difference in color. And it is more than the team name and player's number, every section title in the infobox uses those colors: "Professional debut," "Career history," "Career highlights and awards," and "Selected NFL statistics (through Week 17 of the 2008 NFL season)" are all in those colors.
Lowber is the only one of the above examples that partially passes, and only in its white-on-green portion. The white-on-orange portion fails, although it might pass with black text, I would not know without seeing it that way to test it. Some background colors might not ever pass. The Bengals' darker orange-on-black text did not, and I am concerned that it might not even with white text, but it might. A larger point to cinsider it that it may not be possible to make the colors work because we use one template for all teams, and there is no way I see to determine when to use white text and when to use black text.
As for waiting for a colorblind person to complain, that is just a simply bad idea. I understand the impulse, but we are editing for many people who read wikipedia who are never going to try to edit and post anything. We want to avoid excluding anyone from any portion of the encyclopedia upfront. I like the colors as much as anyone here, but after looking at the guideline, I think that Gman has the right idea if it can be implemented. If not, as much as I hate to say it, the colors will probably need to go.--2008Olympianchitchat 07:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I change my mind to support removal of colors until the colors are changed, I don't think it would be best to leave templates looking like they currently do. So until the templates follow the color use guidlines, I support removal of colors. It would be best not have any colors then. Gman124 talk 15:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Screeeew that.►Chris NelsonHolla! 16:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay here's my take on the above comment from Gman...
the ones that I think really should be modyfied
ones I'm not sure about
  • Minnesota Vikings example John David Booty (heck no, purple on yellow perfect)
  • Baltimore Ravens for example Joe Flacco (see Vikings)
  • Washington Redskins example Colt Brennan (see Vikings except change purple with red)
  • Pittsburgh Steelers for example Dennis Dixon (see Vikings except change purple with black)
  • Jacksonville Jaguars for example David Garrard (see Vikings except change to green and lightish brownish)
  • Kansas City Chiefs eaxmple Brodie Croyle (see Vikings except change purple to lightish red)
  • Cincinnati Bengals for example Carson Palmer (see Vikings except change to orange and black)

--Giants27 T/C 20:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Use of team colors in sports infoboxes

[edit]

Should the title bars of player infoboxes use team colors? If used, should those colors conform to WP:Color?--2008Olympianchitchat 06:05, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The concern is that the use of many team-color combinations does not provide adequate color contrast for color-blind readers, a violation of the color guideline. An example would be the infobox at right of C. J. Ah You (image removed to save space), which uses the two team colors of the St. Louis Rams:

C. J. Ah You
St. Louis Rams
Personal information
Born: (1982-07-07) July 7, 1982 (age 42)
La Habra, California
Career information
College:Oklahoma
NFL draft:2007 / round: 7 / pick: 239
Career history
 * Offseason and/or practice squad member only
Roster status:Active
Career highlights and awards
  • Big 12 Newcomer of the Year (2005)
  • First-team All-Big 12 (2006)

This is a request for comment, not a request for signatures. Opinion has more weight when you provide a rationale, not just a vote. DoubleBlue (talk) 03:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support removal of team colors

[edit]
  1. MZMcBride (talk)
  2. chandler (talk · contribs)
  3. Renata (talk) 02:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. -- Quiddity (talk)
  5. Ehlkej (talk) 04:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose removal of team colors

[edit]
  1. Giants27 TC
  2. ►Chris NelsonHolla!
  3. Pinkkeith (talk)
  4. ~Richmond96 t • c
  5. Yankees10
  6. AFL-Cool (talk)
  7. --David Göthberg (talk) 19:32, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. DoubleBlue (talk) 21:24, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. conman33 (. . .talk) 22:05, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Tavix (talk) 04:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Crash Underride
  12. Needs to be done consistently within a particular team, but colors add to the visual appeal --B (talk) 16:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Eagles24/7 00:26, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Truthanado (talk) 00:38, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support using colors only if in compliance with WP:COLORS

[edit]
  1. 2008Olympianchitchat 05:43, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Gman124 talk 14:35, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. OlEnglish (Talk)
  4. Royalbroil
  5. --TRUCO 23:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Rje (talk) 15:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. xanderer (talk) 02:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8.  StarScream1007  ►Talk  19:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Ikip (talk) 17:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC) strong support after clarification.[reply]
  10. Jwilkinsen (talk) 07:15, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. DeeJayK (talk) 18:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

[edit]

Comments

[edit]

I don't think it's really appropriate to vote on something like this. We should try to be as accessible as possible to people, regardless of what the majority on this talk page want. If the colors can be brightened or have their contrast changed to be accessible, then that should be an acceptable compromise. If not, they're not necessary to understanding a player's biography and should be removed. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To people that haven't voiced any concerns.►Chris NelsonHolla! 22:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So do you now think differently that we have had at least one editor who is colorblind, Rje, speak up?--2008Olympianchitchat 17:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CONSENSUS.--Giants27 TC 22:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with MZMcBride. see WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. --Gman124 talk 01:23, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so what, we're still discussing that's what this section called "comments" is for that's what that really long discussion above was, this is a decision that concerns every player page concering the NFL/CFL/AAFL/AFL and any other league that uses this template, that's a lot of pages that would change with any little minor change we make to this template, so I think that this is votable.--Giants27 TC 01:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MZMcBride, I think that if the issue is whether to follow a policy, then I agree that should not be up for a vote. The policy would need to be overruled or amended, unless there is an argument that it is not actually being violated. That is why I introduced a third option of retaining colors if such use could be within policy. I did not realize how many templates would be affected. I think we need to publicize a request for comment on this issue on all of the concerned wikiproject talk pages, as well as at wider projects such as WP:WPT. I moved the comments section beneath the !voting area as is the norm. And does anyone know why we were requested not to add the time to our !votes? It is useful as this goes along to be able to determine when the !voting dies down.--2008Olympianchitchat 06:05, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My two cents - researchers will find colours invaluable to save time reading if they are searching for statistical information. Isn't that what an encyclopedia is all about? It can also provide links that would otherwise be a chore. AFL-Cool (talk) 07:26, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is the use of colors causing accessibility problems. See WP:COLOR.--2008Olympianchitchat 12:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would remove the team colours in the infoboxes from this template (and the Baseball players infoboxes), it would go into accordance with Ice hockey, Basketball, (rest of the world) Football, Rugby, Cricket etc, etc. I'm guessing every other sport. Isn't it also time to convert this template into {{Infobox}}? — CHANDLER#10 — 08:39, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Remember my comment earlier, removal of the colors would totally screw up Category:National Football League free agents, which automatically adds players to it if they have no colors in this infobox.--Giants27 TC 13:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So change that trigger to, no current club instead of no colours. If you're talking about {{ #ifeq: {{{currentteam}}} | Free Agent |[[Category:National Football League free agents]]|}} it's not the fact that there's no colour in the infobox but rather "Free Agent" as currentteam — CHANDLER#10 — 13:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per Olympian's question, since I copy pasted the sigs of all the people who commented, I couldn't bring the times down, so that's why, but you can go ahead and add the times.--Giants27 TC 14:35, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed my mind from removal of colors to Support the use of colors only if they are in compliance with WP:COLOR. --Gman124 talk 14:42, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The use of team colours in the infobox is useful in identifying the team for which the person plays (and quickly identifying if they are not currently signed), especially since image use guidelines do not permit the use of the team logo. Of course, the contrast should be sufficient to be legible and is not the sole way to identify the team, it is however a quick and helpful identifier. Although I support the WP:COLOUR guideline, I refrained from qualifying my support of team colours with that guideline because I think the implications are unclear and the minor loss of information involved in unclear coloured headings does not call for such strictness. Also, as to consistency, it improves consistency with team-related articles. DoubleBlue (talk) 21:26, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A logo that uses only letters or simple geometric shapes would be permissible as those cannot be copyrighted. See WP:FBS logos--2008Olympianchitchat 04:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The colours would be less useful then the actual name of the team, which appears in the boxes... Just take into account the billions on the world who don't have any idea of what teams have what colours in the nfl? Using these colours only "help" those who already know stuff about the team(s). — CHANDLER#10 — 22:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But isn't helping some better than helping none?►Chris NelsonHolla! 22:44, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The team name is in the header, the article, and, I believe, elsewhere in the infobox. The team colours are a standard, quick, identification in football and establishes a nice consistency with teammates articles and the lack of colour quickly identifies an unsigned player. DoubleBlue (talk) 22:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
team colours identify teams in all sports, yet they are only present in players infoboxes in american football and baseball. Again, it only helps to identify if you already know what which colours mean, which most don't know. And to Chris, well not if it goes against WP:ACCESS and WP:COLOUR, because it might help some, while make it harder for others. And those it help would only be people "on the inside" and in the know of american football, who would know which team is which anyway. — CHANDLER#10 — 22:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just to give perspective, neither of cricket, association football, rugby union, ice hockey, f1, nascar, basketball, australian football, handball, none of these use colour specific player infoboxes, many of them use, what seem to be a standardize system, the one with the lightblue. I see no reason why american football should have colours, and there seems to be a consensus when it comes to sports that club colours don't show up in infoboxes of players. — CHANDLER#10 — 23:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How the fuck are they going to put colors in a nascar bio or an f1 bio?--Giants27 TC 23:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It would be rather simple in F1... they race in teams and the teams have colours... can't say anything for nascar. — CHANDLER#10 — 23:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're talkin about all these people who don't know about the teams in football and baseball, so I've got a question for you, why are they looking up football and baseball, I know nothing about soccer and I don't look up David Beckham, or rugby (who plays rugby?), so tell me why would they be looking it up other than to learn about the subject (which by the way the colors would help in that situation too).--Giants27 TC 23:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that they simply haven't come up with the simple method of adding and updating team colours or they aren't as identifiable as American football. DoubleBlue (talk) 23:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The method used by this template isn't hard to duplicate... and no, american football teams don't have more identifiable colours than other sports. They are still 100% unnecessary in players infoboxes, we don't have to decorate them to make them look pretty, I remember a similar discussion about Harry Potter characters who had colours according to their school house... they went as well. — CHANDLER#10 — 23:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Claiming that the pro-argument is simply decoration shows there is little point in discussion with you. DoubleBlue (talk) 23:44, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) If they know that little about the teams, then the name of the team may be meaningless as well. However, they may soon learn and they will also see the team colours and recognise the consistency with players on the same team. Should colours have poor enough contrast that they are not clear, then that can be corrected easily; to completely remove the team colours out of fear that some minority will not be able to see it is overkill. DoubleBlue (talk) 23:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Who cares about Harry Potter infoboxes with color? Please present relevant discussions (i.e. basketball people saying let's get rid of the colors, not some discussion about Harry Potter).--Giants27 TC 23:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Giants27, rules don't apply differently to the comics or films or sports wikiprojects. Just because this is about the sports doesn't make it different and give the right to declare other wikiproject as unrelavant. Gman124 talk 15:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not calling out the wikiproject, but to me it's different because Harry Potter is not a sports team, so it's totally different what I want now is a link to a sports discussion where they said hey let's remove the colors from the infobox.--Giants27 TC 15:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is about the same thing, overusing colours in infoboxes. As far as I know no fictional characters have colours anymore... Not sports except two leagues(?) (still) have them, why should they stay and not follow what seems to be a consensus over the sport side of wp — CHANDLER#10 — 23:44, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not just two leagues, 1 in baseball and 3 or 4 in real football.--Giants27 TC 23:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're going there?... Since when is a hand and a egg and foot and a ball? If you can't take people disagreeing with you should've stopped the RfC — CHANDLER#10 — 23:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, no you're welcome to your opinion and I'm welcome to mine, I'm just confused as to why you brought in fictional characters who in the first place shouldn't of had color, what I want is you to show me a sports wikiproject discussion concerning this, where the outcome was remove the colors, no some fictional character stuff.--Giants27 TC 00:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The reason i brought it up is because it's related in the fact that colour specific infoboxes for what ever they were have been disappearing from wp. If I remember right those against colours then said things like "decorative" and "un-encyclopaedic". — CHANDLER#10 — 08:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They talked about colors at the comics wikiproject WikiProject_Comics/Archive_33#Colors, wher it was also asdressed that "there are Usability and Accessibility issues if you don't have a strong enough contrast between text and background". It was also addressed at Wikiproject Sports - Use_of_team_colors_in_templates though they didn't really go anywhere with the disscussions. --Gman124 talk 16:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
also is there any relavent argument by those who support the use of colors without changing them, other than the same argument of "need to see other sports project talk about removal of colors first". This could all be over if a compromise could be set about making a strong contast between text and background. Gman124 talk 16:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The colours should be close enough to the team colours to be visually identifiable with the team. If the contrast is demonstrably inadequate, then it should be altered to permit legibility but there is no need to go overboard since the textual information is elsewhere in the infobox and article and it would be wrong to misrepresent the team colours. DoubleBlue (talk) 21:21, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is this RfC over? If no one answers in 24 hours I'm going to close it.--Giants27 TC 00:17, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's no hurry. The RfC remains posted for thirty days. It has only been up a week. The last post was only three days ago. Personally, I don't scan through the RfCs more often than once a week. Not to mention that quite a few editors simply registered a vote, and this is not a poll. A vote without an explanation won't count for much. Compare on the other hand, Doubleblue's nuanced position. I think that we are far from having a good idea of what consensus is and should let this stay open the full 30 days to get as much input as possible. There is no pressure to change anything in the infoboxes right now, so as I said there should be no hurry. I would like to point out the article at WP:NOTAVOTE and neutrally ask those who just voted to explain their reasoning--2008Olympianchitchat 05:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see no problem with using colours specific to individual teams so long as the contrast is clear. Many users, myself included, are colour blind - the first concern should be to make information accessible. WP:COLOURS is a common sense guideline and should be followed above more superficial concerns. Rje (talk) 15:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This RFC needs to be clarified to properly define the scope. I thought this was about removing color boxes from team pages (e.g., Buffalo Sabres), and my response was "of course we should show team colors in team infoboxes; if a reader is colorblind, they lose no more information than they would by looking at a picture of the jerseys". But I see from reading the comments that this is actually about using team colors for the infobox title bar on player articles. That's an entirely different kettle of fish. Powers T 15:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite correct. I fleshed out the description of issue above and gave an example. I don't know what the effect would be if I changed the wording of the RfC itself. Would it generate another RfC? Would others here consider it to invalidate those opinions already given? If so, I think we might have to rely on the changes I've made to make it clear once editors arrive here to weigh in. That aside, what is your opinion on the issue as you now understand it?--2008Olympianchitchat 04:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever. I'm not going to let it remain misleading, I tweaked it to make it clearer.--2008Olympianchitchat 04:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. On the actual question at hand, I remain undecided. I can see the virtues of all three options. Powers T 13:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with ►Chris NelsonHolla!. Crash Underride 17:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's no harm in using colors, as long as everyone can enjoy the horrible rainbow. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  19:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(refactored out) Ikip (talk) 10:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is any argument as to which colors to use. It is over whether the colors, as used, are able to be read by those that are colorblind, per WP:COLOR. It's about whether we want the encyclopedia to be accessible to everybody.--2008Olympianchitchat 17:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I dont think Wikipedia:Don't edit war over the colour of templates overriedes WP:COLOUR and we're not warring... we're discussing to get a consensus. — CHANDLER#10 — 17:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, I changed my vote from oppose to strong support after clarifiation. Ikip (talk) 17:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The colors should be kept, as long as they not conflicting with accessibility. There's no reason to strip that out of the infobox.--Jwilkinsen (talk) 07:15, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Colors should be kept. Use of color generally provides additional and easy-to-identify information for our readers. For those who are color-blind, the information that may be difficult to see in the infobox is generally also portrayed as plain text in the main body of the article, so no information is lost. I suppose you could make a case that if the colors of a specific team are difficult for colorblind individuals, then that the team may be in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Truthanado (talk) 00:43, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Answered by Infobox Country

[edit]

(I just saw the RfC in the Signpost)

The Question of whether or not to have customizable infobox colors was argued-to-dust at Template:Infobox Country.

See Template talk:Infobox Country#Individually-modifiable infobox colours: diversity or distraction? for a summation of the issues. See Talk:Wales/Archive 4#Info box color for an example of what the proponents wanted.

Custom-infobox-styling on a per-article basis can be considered harmful for all the reasons summarized in that thread.

Using colors that lower legibility for anyone (whether for reasons of color-blindness, or poor vision, or using an old monitor/display, or reading whilst in imperfect lighting conditions) should be avoided if at all possible.

Instead, you should use a team banner/flag/logo, which contains the relevant colors, in the infobox. That is how all other infoboxes deal with it, from countries to musicians. Sports are the only current exception, which should be changed.

I see there are "colors", "uniform", "logo", and "helmet" fields in the {{NFL team}} infobox already (eg Seattle Seahawks) - you should adapt those fields to here, and remove the custom colors from {{NFL team}}'s header at the same time. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One cannot normally have team flags or logos on player articles due to our image use guidelines. Using the team colours on a header line does nearly the same thing and the text only states what is stated again in plaintext in the lead. DoubleBlue (talk) 23:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That still only makes it decorative and not working with wp:colour... All other sports except american football and baseball are doing fine without colours and instead use things like kits, uniforms and when it comes to the NFL teams they already have a colour row — CHANDLER#10 — 07:47, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that it is not merely decorative but rather a quick identifier of the team with which the person is playing. Does no harm. Imparts information. That information is conveyed in other means to those who do not see colours. DoubleBlue (talk) 16:01, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the player infoboxes the first header line has the team name followed by the player number so you can't identify a team by their name? --Gman124 talk 17:00, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What part of quick identification do you not understand?--Giants27 T/C 17:06, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What's quicker than the actual name of the team? And again, this "quick identification" is only available for people with pre-knowledge of all the NFL teams. — CHANDLER#10 — 22:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Using team colours for text and bacground that is there for a purpose is only acceptable if readable to nearly everyone. Including a flag or logo next to the text seems like an obvious choice. If copyright issues or the like prevent this (which I it find hard to understand), perhaps a small box in each colour could be shown next to the text.--Noe (talk) 21:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As a person who regulary uploads logos, I know for a fact that you have to have a free-use rationale for every page the logo is on or else the logo will be deleted so that wouldn't work.--Giants27 T/C 21:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Essentially: I (and therefor others) have a hard time reading the headers in these infobox examples: Brandon Lloyd, Rudi Johnson, Drew Brees. (random selection, possibly there are worse examples.) I have perfect vision but an old monitor.
If you want the color-blind, or completely blind, to get any of this color information, you need to adapt the "Team colors" line from the {{NFL team}} infobox. Using the colors as a decorative background in the headers is not informative to them.
I have no time to spend convincing, nor desire to argue with, fans. (shortened form of fanatics. Something to be proud, but aware of...) Figure it out, and be polite about it. -- Quiddity (talk) 22:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question, and I mean this in the nicest way ever, a blind person wouldn't be able to read anything on Wikipedia right?--Giants27 T/C 00:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See screen reader and Blindness#Computers. No worries, we all only know what we've learned so far in life :) -- Quiddity (talk) 01:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but being completely blind doesn't impact WP:COLOUR in WP:ACCESS I you know what I mean. — CHANDLER#10 — 03:17, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The benefit to the non color blind is not great, and the harm to color blind and other visually imparied persons is real. Not to mention the harm done to those with no vision problems -- green on gold and other color combinations are much more difficult to read than black/white. I think a lot of the support for this is due to team pride -- which is cool -- but not appropriate for Wikipedia. Ehlkej (talk) 04:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Side question

[edit]

Just a side question here since the color issue does boil down to readability issues (as far as that goes, "artistic license" may be called for with one of the colors being pasteled to get the needed contrast)...

Isn't there also an issue with regard to presenting dated and/or biased information with the colors?

The teams have, and likely will continue to, changed their colors. That alone opens the colors used open to a judgement call (current, previous, next previous, etc) and a fair bit of maintenance when the do change. But the personnel have a history of changing teams as well as having been associate with a team prior to the current color scheme. Again, this opens the question of a judgement call (current team, previous team, previous team's previous colors, last team, first team, etc).

Has this issue been dealt with?

If it has, then fine, either develop a chart of legible combos for the teams and eras or can the colors. And if it is going to take time to get the chart together, can the colors until it's ready.

If not, can the colors until the issue of using dated and/or biased information is cleared up.

- J Greb (talk) 18:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see no issue here...►Chris NelsonHolla! 19:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Really?
So which colors should a play like Correll Buckhalter have? By what criteria?
As I asked, is this something that WP:NFL has already hashed out or not?
- J Greb (talk) 19:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What's wrong with the colors on Buckhalter's page?--Giants27 T/C 20:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The colors for the team he's on...►Chris NelsonHolla! 20:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know but they were changed.....--Giants27 T/C 20:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's no issue because the colours are automatically kept up to date by colour tables like Template:NFLPrimaryColor by reference to the player's current team; they are not individually added to each article. DoubleBlue (talk) 20:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks DoubleBlue, that sounds like a degree of an MoS/guideline was hit on by the Project and implemented, and covers the question I had - the colors are only going to be for current teams and players.
It still leaves the legibility mess, but as I said - side question. - J Greb (talk) 20:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, misinterpreted question, the legibility has been fixed for the Broncos, Panthers and Seahawks already.--Giants27 T/C 21:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There does come a question about some of players that are under contract with multiple leagues for example Larry Brackins who is under contract with Arena league team Philadelphia Soul and NFL's New York Jets. So who is to decide which colors to use is these cases. Similar thing with Lance Frazier who also plays for multiple leagues. --Gman124 talk 23:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To answer your question players such as Jonathan Ordway who recently signed up to play in Canada is only under contract with Montreal since he signed elsewhere. However if he returns to the Arena League it would be with whoever he last played for. P.S. Brackins was released by the Jets in September.--Giants27 T/C 23:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Correction to my response, whoever they last signed with is the team they play for like with the AFL since it's shut down for the year everyone is a "free agent" but are still under contract with their respective AFL teams.--Giants27 T/C 23:31, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

[edit]
  • Now that the rfc templates have been removed. Is the RFC over? and what is the verdict? To me it still seems like the templates don't follow WP:Color, so if template don't comply with WP:Color I think everyone who said "support only if in compliance with WP:Color", would then be considered under "Support removal of color". --Gman124 talk 14:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that sufficient time and discussion has taken place. If the removal of colours was what intended by their !votes, then that is what they would have said. The discussion to me is more clear. A couple of people think the colours are purely decoration and serve no purpose. That is countered by the majority of those who prefered the retention of team colours. There was, however, a significant concern that the some colour combinations do not have adequate contrast to be legible by some readers. That can obviously be reconciled by adjusting those colour combinations. DoubleBlue (talk) 14:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Doesn't the word only already stats that. To me it seems that that vote is saying support use of color only if in compliance with WP:color, and if not then support removal. Shouldn't the color be fixed now then? --Gman124 talk 14:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1. It wasn't a vote; it was a discussion. Even if it was a vote a majority was in favour of retention and there would be no consensus as to whether it depended on WP:COLOR.
  • 2. Go ahead and have those conversations. None of the ones you mentioned above bother me but I'm not familiar enough with the teams. Honestly, I don't feel that there's much of a problem at all. I highly doubt that colour-blind readers don't use their own colour-scheme rather than allowing default ones and the information is conveyed in other ways already anyway satisfying WP:COLOUR. DoubleBlue (talk) 14:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Still is it going to end up as no colclusion or something else? becasue around the same amount of people want the colors changed, and around the same amount that don't. --Gman124 talk 14:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I gave my opinion. Reading the comments and arguments leads me to believe that most support using the team colours but that there is a significant enough concern about colour contrast, that those concerns ought to be addressed where they occur. DoubleBlue (talk) 14:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you can develop an alternative method of displaying team colors, that does not negatively impact on legibility, and that is informative to partially/fully blind readers, then you should implement that instead.

Also, there were other good points raised above about players being on multiple teams over their careers (using only a single team's colors misrepresents that (related to WP:Recentism)), and altering colors just for legibility will make the colors inaccurate.

Please reread the comments, and take into account that "ILIKEIT" is not a good rationale, and that team pride should be factored in as a heavily biasing influence. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the supposed issue of players who spend time on more than one team, this seems like a bit of a red herring. I think we can all agree that for active players/coaches, it makes sense to use his current team. For former players/coaches, there is generally a pretty solid consensus around which team a player is most identified with, e.g. I think we can all agree that most people think of Jerry Rice and Joe Montana as 49ers even though they each finished their careers on other teams. Hall of Fame players are inducted as members of a single team even though they may have played for more than one team — so there is a precedence for making this type of judgement. Finally, if consensus cannot be reached as to which team to place a certain player with, the value can simply to omitted and default colors will be used in the infobox. -- Deejayk (talk) 20:29, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, are we seriously discussing this?
@Deejayk- we go with their most recent team and since Rice and Montana don't need the 49ers colors then it doesn't matter. But you're right.
@Gman124 - seriously yeah 5 to 12 and 11 is definetely consensus to remove the colors. The decision is only change if hard to read which we've done recently see Julius Peppers, Matt Hasselbeck, the rest have been determined that they do not need changing. Not sure if the Bears have been changed as of now, however.
--Giants27 T/C 02:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retired players don't get colors at all...they also don't have the same infobox as current players so the discussion here is irrelevant.►Chris NelsonHolla! 02:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the consensus is to keep the colors, but to make them in compliance with accessibility requirements. That would be best accomplished by changing the text to either white or black, depending on the primary team color used as the background color. The secondary color team could be used as the background for the second and fourth title bars, that would preserve the use of both colors. I don't know how we can make the template recognize which text color to use, however.--2008Olympianchitchat 03:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whitespace

[edit]
Johnny Fussball
Mario Bros.
Personal information
Born:20089-02-19
Someplace

If you use the statweek field, but do not use nfl. pfr. cbs. espn or si, then the template adds a lot of whitespace at the top. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 17:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No player should have an infobox made without using nfl. pfr. cbs. espn or si.--2008Olympianchitchat 05:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well when a guy first joins the NFL, he doesn't have an NFL link (or probably any other). But then he also wouldn't have stats, so it's moot.►Chris NelsonHolla! 15:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Problem

[edit]

If you feel this box should be used for ALL football players, NFL, AFL and CFL, then fix where it says "Selected NFL statistics". Until that's fixed, I will continue to use the Infobox AFLactive and Infobox af2active for players that currently play in those leagues and HAVE played as well as the NFL. Crash Underride 18:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those fields aren't mandatory.►Chris NelsonHolla! 23:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That don't matter, they should still be fixed so when players DO have stats on there, they won't say their from the wrong league. Crash Underride 18:39, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty sure I fixed it.--Giants27 T/C 19:02, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't see that. Good work, however, you forget the af2. Thanks. Crash Underride 19:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Did it like a week ago but for some reason it just totally screwed it up, so I undid it. Then just readded it, hopefully it will work this time.--Giants27 T/C 19:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, for some reason, there's a HUGE white space above the box, in the articles. Don't know why. Crash Underride 19:26, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just noticed that, wonder why.--Giants27 T/C 19:40, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Player's Name

[edit]

I would like the players name inside the infobox and be highlighted by the teams color like the coaches page and team pages. I do believe this is so much better to get the readers attention.

--Mr. Unknown (talk) 18:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why? What would that accomplish?--Giants27 (t|c|r|s) 19:11, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alt text support

[edit]

{{editprotected}} For WP:ACCESSIBILITY by visually impaired readers, this template should support image alt text as per WP:ALT. I have tested a simple patch in the sandbox to add this support, and have documented the change; please install it. Eubulides (talk) 22:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done It's in... and set up to show in the mock up. - J Greb (talk) 01:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addition

[edit]

{{editprotected}} This should be uncontroversial, but I added a parameter for coaching years here which mirrors the way its used on the baseball infobox.--Giants27 (c|s) 16:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No one's really gonna contest this, you could just ask Pats1 to unlock it.►Chris NelsonHolla! 16:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know no one's going to contest it and true, didn't think of that.--Giants27 (c|s) 16:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UFL New York Colours

[edit]

I do not have any idea how to fix this but if you look at C. J. Bacher's page, whatever the colours determined for the UFL New York team currently has a black background, with black writing. Could someone who has access to fixing the code do so? Shootmaster 44 (talk) 07:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should be fixed now. If it doesn't appear to be, clear your browser's cache.►Chris NelsonHolla! 07:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weight

[edit]

Could someone please replace

{{convert|{{{weight}}}|lb|kg|abbr=on}}

with

{{convert|{{{weight}}}|lb|kg|0|abbr=on}}

so that the template produces an exact number. --bender235 (talk) 19:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. --bender235 (talk) 09:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template makeover?

[edit]

Why is it that some people can totally redesign this template with no prior discussion? In my opinion the "old" version of this template looked better. --bender235 (talk) 11:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We're being bold and trying to allow it to be used for any league.►Chris NelsonHolla! 13:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I discussed it with a few editors and that was the final product, no reason to not go ahead with it.--Giants27 (c|s) 13:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where did you discuss it? And why did you reverse the accuracy modification I suggested in the section above? --bender235 (talk) 14:17, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
here and here. And that was unintentional I'll go re-add it.--Giants27 (c|s) 14:21, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Usually we don't plan those kind of rearrangements in user talk pages, because few people notice. I guess a couple of people would've liked to contribute to this, me included. --bender235 (talk) 14:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It can be altered at any time. If you have any comments or criticisms, share them and we'll discuss.►Chris NelsonHolla! 14:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I liked those "design lines" that are now removed. I know they had no function, but it just looked better in my eyes. Anyway, no matter how this templates will eventually be designed, {{Infobox college football player}} should look alike. And also, it's not that I hate the changes you made, it was just that "overnight change" that stunned me. --bender235 (talk) 16:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I still really think position should go somewhere at the top. It look out of place with college and draft info. Position is primary info like # and Team that should be displayed prominently.►Chris NelsonHolla! 18:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I kind of like the new look, but i noticed that the stats thing got messed up in there at one point.. it used to display "Stats as of week 1 of the 2009 season" now it just says "Stats as of 2009".. was this intentional, because i see it as misleading, unelss there's gonna be a major individual player page stat overhaul. RF23 (talk) 22:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's intentional. And no hopefully it sticks like that.--Giants27 (c|s) 22:46, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The documentation probably needs to be updated then. RF23 (talk) 23:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why no "weeks" for stats? --bender235 (talk) 00:27, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the documentation I think. Double-check to be sure.►Chris NelsonHolla! 23:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary lines

[edit]

Does the "Debuted in..." line really need to be there? This information is already in the infobox, in the list of teams played for. For example, for Brett Favre, the infobox already says "Atlanta Falcons (1991)", so is "Debuted in 1991 for the Atlanta Falcons" really necessary? It's just redundant to me.

Also, "Last played in..." is absolutely unnecessary for this template especially, because active NFL players don't have a "last team played for" because they're still active. Ksy92003 (talk) 18:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The debut is when they first played. As you know, many professional football players do play for their first team. Or second. Or third. And so on.
Also, the final team/final year fields don't show up unless it's filled in. It's for retired players, and one of the goal with this new infobox is to make it compatible for retired players, coaches, and other leagues.►Chris NelsonHolla! 18:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm telling you, we really need to rename this thing to clarify that.--Giants27 (c|s) 18:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In what case would the debut year be different than the first year listed in the "teams played for" section? Ksy92003 (talk) 18:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See Fred Reid, Stefan Logan, etc...All played in different years than when they first joined the league.--Giants27 (c|s) 18:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jalen Parmele. Thousands of players in the history of football. How is this new to you?►Chris NelsonHolla! 18:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cory Boyd, Joey Haynos...--Giants27 (c|s) 18:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I wasn't exactly sure how the teams were listed in the infobox. I didn't know if they had to play a game for that team to be listed in the infobox. I forget about the practice squad players situation because I'm not that huge on football, but in the case of Parmele, should there be some sort of notation in the listing that indicates that while he was with the team, he didn't play an NFL game for that team? Ksy92003 (talk) 18:26, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not in Parmele's case, because he did spend time on the Dolphins' active roster, but just never got into a game. The debut shows he never played for them because it says he debuted with Baltimore, so there's no need to mark his Dolphins tenure with anything.►Chris NelsonHolla! 18:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I guess that proves that I really don't know much about football. That's why when I first thought about this in my head, I came to the talk page to ask those that know significantly more than I do about the sport, as well as the template, instead of going into the template and removing it straightaway. Ksy92003 (talk) 18:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

High school / college parameters

[edit]

The high school a player attended is as relevant as the college is. It doesn't make any sense that the high school is only used for the CFL crowd only. I bring this up because the high school parameter keeps getting removed at Cato June. The infobox is more than for just professional information. At the VERY least, document the parameter to describe the rule that the "high school parameter should be used for CFL players ONLY!!!!!!!1" — X96lee15 (talk) 01:53, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, no reason why is shouldn't be used for every player in every league.--Giants27 (c|s) 02:03, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The high school field was not in the old version of the infobox, so if you want it you can work it out here, but for now it's being removed.
I disagree that it is as relevant as college. Lots of players didn't play high school football but most played in college. I see the value of birth date and that kind of personal information, but I don't think we need a timeline from that point all the way to college. Why not include elementary and middle schools as well?►Chris NelsonHolla! 02:19, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just reverted, since there doesn't seem to be consensus to do so. And it can be as relevant if they were a prolific player in high school. Plus, some people don't play college either, yet get a pro shot (see Lakendrick Terrell). Finally, seriously? I hope that's a joke.--Giants27 (c|s) 02:21, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There wasn't a consensus to add it in the first place, and the only reason I didn't protest it initially is because I was under the impression it was going to be used for CFL guys. (Maybe it was more relevant for Canadian players, I don't know.) Either way, I didn't include it when the infobox was conceived and I wholeheartedly believe it's not relevant enough for a pro sports infobox. We don't include high school accomplishments in the box (for the most part, although a few have them I'm sure) so why would we include his high school at all?►Chris NelsonHolla! 02:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's the same relevance and the only reason it was included was for CFL guys since the Gridiron football person infobox had it so to make them practically the same (and give them nothing to scream about) it was added, the only reason I added it for Cato June was so that we could remove the stupid double infobox on the article thing. (see my talk page for minor discussion)--Giants27 (c|s) 02:33, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Being able to remove the college infobox on June's page isn't really a good argument for its inclusion in this infobox. Not every bit of information is in the infobox, and I think stuff like learning institutions before college are better left for the body text.►Chris NelsonHolla! 02:36, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, the use of the high school parameter was for players who were signed out of high school and didn't play college football. It is of interest what last amateur team the player played for whether that's college, high school, or junior football. However, I only advocate the last amateur team; i.e. a single parameter for each player not both high school and college. DoubleBlue (talk) 04:59, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Including the high school parameter makes a lot of sense. Most players' articles describe their high school career, their college career and their NFL career. Since the infobox is a quick-reference summary of the text, the high school should be included in it. If not in the infobox, then why mention it in the article text? Furthermore, most high school articles list NFL players in its "Notable alumni" section, so having it in the infobox is an implicit notability and ties everything together. At the risk of initiating another edit war, the high school parameter is being added to the template.Truthanado (talk) 14:37, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even if it stays, I'm just going to delete it from every NFL player infobox I find.►Chris NelsonHolla! 16:12, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then why the hell leave the players college while you're at it? Go ahead a remove those too. Crash Underride 02:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coaches/Contributers

[edit]

Hey can you guys please fix it for coaches like Bert Bell and Bill Walsh so their height and weight doesn't show because height and weight shouldn't show for coaches and also for last played.... it needs to be last coached too, so yeah. Thanks --Phbasketball6 (talk) 02:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Death date/place field

[edit]

If the infobox is used for active NFL personnel, why is there a field for place and date of death? –  LATICS  talk  02:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not longer just used for that.►Chris NelsonHolla! 03:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree that it's confusing so I'd suggest we move it to something like: Infobox Gridiron football person (that is once, we remove that infobox from pages and delete it).--Giants27(c|s) 18:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the case, Chris, why not rename the template? Either way you go about it, it really doesn't make much sense. –  LATICS  talk  18:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Can we wikilink the team name at the top of the Infobox like the previous version of this Infobox? Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:16, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem.--Giants27(c|s) 19:33, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you still going to fix it? Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Forgot all about it, but I'm not 100% sure how to make it work in the template. So feel free to try it yourself, while I try to figure out how to make it work.--Giants27(c|s) 22:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I tried it a bunch of times and I give up now. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:52, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statsweek

[edit]

Could someone please re-add that "statsweek" parameter? That use to be very useful. --bender235 (talk) 02:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dallas Texans issue

[edit]

See Hank Stram and Johnny Robinson (safety). Dallas Texans brings you to a disambiguation page, and you cannot fix it for this infobox. Eagles 24/7 (C) 04:10, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you use this template: {{Infobox NFL player coach}}. --bender235 (talk) 09:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This one is trying to take over and merge other infoboxes together to not require some huge infobox change. I'll see what I can do, but I'm pretty sure we'll have to leave it as is because it would screw up every other infobox.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 19:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

debutteam

[edit]

Please see the edit that I made here [1]. As you can see, I am trying to eliminate the dab, but I get the brackets showing in the template. I think it is far better to use the piped link than to go to a dab page, but can't seem to remember how to make the brackets not appear. Am I forgetting how to make this appear correctly, or is this template not facilitating what I'm looking for?. --After Midnight 0001 19:05, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This has happened to me a bunch of times too. With the current setup of Infobox NFLactive, you can't get rid of the brackets. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:34, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Infobox_NFLactive/Archive_2&oldid=1118824232"