User talk:Dirtlawyer1/Archives/2010/September

Winning percentages

Dirtlawyer1, I saw your recent edits on Steve Spurrier regarding winning percentages. I'm not against including them in principal, but they are non-standard in the infobox and head coaching record tables at this point. If you are going to include them, I recommend you employ Template:Winning percentage rather than computing the percentages off-line and hard coding them. That will make maintenance for active coaches like Spurrier much easier. The best solution would be to add auto-calc fields to Template:Infobox college coach, Template:CFB Yearly Record Entry, Template:CFB Yearly Record Subtotal, Template:CFB Yearly Record End, like those employed in Template:Infobox NCAA football school and have the percentages render dynamically. That would involve a great deal of one-time reworking though, i.e. breaking the record fields into constituent wins, losses, and ties. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Jweiss, I agree that an embedded winning percentage function built into the infobox would be best. Creating the embedded function is beyond my meager skills, but there are other editors who have those skills. You may want to raise the issue with DeFault Ryan, Eagles247 and Chris J Nelson. We should also look at embedding that function in the Division I football win-loss records article, where 90% of the editors are apparently unable to calculate proper winning percentages and are apparently unaware of the correct formula that counts ties as half-wins.

In the interim, I think the winning percentage is a key piece of infobox data that should be included and preserved, especially for coaches like Spurrier and Meyer, for whom their winning percentage is one of their most impressive career statistics. By including ti in the infobox, I believe that we are simply giving casual Wikipedia readers a key piece of information many of themare seeking. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Catmore1

See Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_September_10#Template:Catmore1_and_Template:Catmore2. Plastikspork (talk) 13:58, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

The cited "WP:Templates for discussion" refers only to the preferred "catmore" template. No one, including me, really cares which of the two "catmore" templates are used, and I am very much in favor or the deletion and removal of redundant templates. That being said, let's not delete the major University of Florida articles listed. The primary users/readers of these articles are University of Florida alumni and Florida Gators fans, and these webs of "Catmore," "main article" and "see also" links have been created to allow casual Wikipedia users to quickly find the major University of Florida articles in which they may be interested. Your consideration and understanding of this consistently formatted and implemented cross-reference scheme is appreciated. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:07, 24 September 2010 (UTC)