Template talk:CFB Schedule Start

This template was considered for deletion on 2019 February 5. The result of the discussion was "merge and redirect".

Presumption of Coaches Poll?

My source data exclusively uses AP Poll Data. The three rank, ranklink, and rankyear fields appear to presume Coaches Poll data and do not allow an override. Confirmation? Pasadena91 (talk) 17:04, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Template:CFB Schedule End to designate other polls. Jweiss11 (talk) 17:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redesign CFB Schedule Start-Entry-End templates

This template system needs redesigning to allow easier use. Most of the work needs to be done to {{CFB Schedule Entry}}, but it makes sense to get a consensus on changes to this and {{CFB Schedule End}} to set the default behaviors first.

I reset the sandbox to the current template and put in the current max and min columns in testcases.

1. When leaving all parameters out, the template automatically adds a wikilink to the Rank column header to [[{{cfb division |year=CURRENTYEAR }} football rankings]]. Which today is 2017 NCAA Division I FBS football rankings. That seems like a bad choice, any past season article without parameters will link to the current year's FBS rankings. It is designed to require "|ranklink = no" to avoid this, but that's not ideal. The best solution is to not add any wikilink if "|rankyear = " is omitted. Then going forward the "|ranklink=" parameter is not needed at all. Leave it in the template for any cases that use it, but take it out of the documentation. Does my explanation make sense and is accurate? - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 01:37, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2. Currently if Time and Rank columns are turned off in the Start template, the editor needs to turn off the footnotes for those columns in the End template. That makes no sense. (However, I don't know if one template can call on a previous template's parameters.) The behavior for the End template should be to not add the Time and Rank footnootes if Time and Rank columns are omitted. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 01:45, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

3. This just covers the End template, but should be discussed here. If there are no column based footnotes (timezone, rank/poll) or game-level footnotes (ncg, hc, other-event), then the table should simply close. Currently a narrow blank row is added at the end of the table. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 01:57, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned on the WikiProject's talk page, I strongly recommend combining all three templates into one as suggested by Frietjes. Combining the templates will make this much easier for all users by saving time (and we won't have a hundred different templates to use!). If we decide to combine it, then we can easily go into discussion on what parameters we should change to optional. Corky 02:21, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how one template by itself saves time. You still have to fill out data on each game/row. In fact, if you have one template, you need to use 1, 2, 3, ... for each parameter that is repeated. So that is harder and would take more time. And I think it makes the template coding longer and harder. I don't think @Frietjes: was making any point about one vs. three templates. In any case, you can start discussing the parameters (optional/required, defaults, behaviors, etc.) now. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 05:33, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mnnlaxer, the planned redesigned template would function similar to {{sports rivalry series table}}, which uses very few named parameters; very similar to filling out a wikitable where you just specify the table entries separated by pipes. the formatting of those entries is handled by the template/module. I should have a demonstration template/module finished soon. Frietjes (talk) 12:51, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, great. But that means only new tables will use it, right? Is it even possible for one template to call a parameter in a previous template? - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 15:18, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]