Template talk:CFB standings start

Improving spacing of standing templates

@Frietjes: how are you? I was wondering if you had any thoughts about improving the layout and spacing of the college football standings templates. Take Template:2005 Gulf South Conference football standings as an example. You see how special notation for Central Arkansas wraps on a second line? Plus there's quite a lot of space between the Conf and Overall groups and between the W and L columns within each of those groups. Would be great to prevent the line wrapping and also reduce the space of the records so that they present like they do elsewhere, e.g. "6–2", not "6 – 2". Let me know if you have any ideas here. Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 00:38, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jweiss11, sure, I have a few ideas. (1) we could remove the space between the score and the dash as you suggest, but this may screw up the dash alignment if we don't keep the dash in its own table cell (2) the width of the team column is currently set to 50% of the table width, which we could increase (or not specify). (3) I put in an option to "nowrap" to table which you can toggle with |nowrap=y, but we could make that the default, or maybe the first two fixes would solve the problem. Frietjes (talk) 14:28, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jweiss11, I increased the default size of the team column, which will automatically shrink to fit the remaining columns. I will test removing the spacing around the dashes next. Frietjes (talk) 14:46, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Structural changes for references

Gonnym, structural changes to this template and or its co-codependents, like one you just made, should be discussed, ideally at WT:CFB. Jweiss11 (talk) 17:00, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You mean that actually providing a source per WP:V is now controversial? You do realize that your sources don't show up in the articles, making a section like 1966 junior college football season#Conference standings seem to be unsourced, even through you actually did the hard work of finding sources? Gonnym (talk) 09:32, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not what I mean. What's controversial cluttering the heading or body of numerical table with more numbers, making it more difficult to read. If you need the references to transclude upward, you could just move them outside the noinclude tags. Or create a field in the footer to hold them. Jweiss11 (talk) 11:33, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]