Template talk:Michigan Wolverines football navbox

message: I think we should review the important figure section with http://mgoblue.com/football/page.aspx?id=28898 in mind.  I am thinking we may want to do something like convert all names to last name only and then list
:All-Americans:
:College Hall of Fame Inductees:
:Heisman Trophy Winners:
:NFL All-Pros or Pro Bowlers:
:NFL First Round Draft Picks:
:NFL Hall of Fame Inductees:
I also think we should readd the rivalries and even add the Little Brown Jug link.  Any thoughts?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD)  17:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Important figures

message: I suggest that a players name appear once for each time he was named All-American.  See (http://bentley.umich.edu/athdept/football/fballam/fballam.htm for multiple year winners).  I also suggest that consensus be italicized and unanimous be italicized and underlined or you could use the notation they use at http://www.ncaa.org/library/records/football/footballs_finest/2002/154-174.pdf .  What do you think?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD)  15:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  All-Americans 

message: I am having trouble reconciling http://www.ncaa.org/library/records/football/footballs_finest/2002/154-174.pdf and http://bentley.umich.edu/athdept/football/fballam/fballam.htm .  Why does Michigan list Bubba Paris as a 1981 All-American?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD)  21:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reconciling 

message: I am thinking of eliminating the other important figures section.  I think we have fleshed out every type of individual who could reasonably contest being added for being in a class of important individuals.  I think the remaining persons are personal favorites more than important persons.  The only possible category I might add would be Michigan Hall of Honor.  However, I think we should leave the template generic so that other schools from other conferences as well as our own can copy it in a way that helps the project move forward without needless battles.  I like guys like Dennis Franklin, Jon Vaughn and Jamie Morris.  However, from the international Wikipedian perspective, they are not cleanly distinguished from others not included on the template.  Why not add Julius Franks, Elmer Gedeon and endless others if we don't just say we have got all important categories of Michigan players included.  Any thoughts?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD)  21:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree the Template is too long, but I think the Other Important Figures (OIF) section is needed.  While having a subjective element, there is a short list of people whose importance in the U-M tradition is indisputable.  Don Canham and Bob Ufer are good examples.  Sure, we could add categories for athletic directors or broadcasters, but most who have served in those capacities (unlike Canham and Ufer) are either unimportant or appear elsewhere on the template (e.g., past A.D.'s like Yost, Crisler and Schembechler, and current A.D. Martin).  Rather than adding more categories, I think the OIF section is the best way to handle it.  Similarly, individuals who have set truly major records at U-M but don't fit other categories would fit in this category.  Examples include Jamie Morris who set the all-time school rushing records (both season and career) and still holds the record for all-purpose yardage in a U-M uniform.  Steve Breaston is another example, as he holds the all-time return records (both punt and kickoff) by wide margins.  (Right now, you have included him in the Alumni Active in the NFL section, but he would unfairly fall off the list if he is released by his current NFL team.  If we want to shorten the template (which I think is a good idea), I think better candidates would be (i) the Alumni Active in the NFL section (it is very long and consists of people who are either already listed in the template elsewhere or are marginal players in terms of their U-M importance), and (ii) shortening the All-Americans section by eliminating double-references (maybe just include a parenthetical (2) if someone was a two-time winner as in the case of multiple Pro-Bowl appearances).  Cbl62 (talk) 21:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the best way to look at the template is to view it as a general template that we are using for Michigan.  What should every football program (in  BCS conference) do?  I think it might be unfair to Western Michigan Broncos football for whom being drafted at all or ever having played in the NFL might be worth keeping them on the template to hold them to a BCS standard.   However, I think most BCS schools would be able to summarize the important wikilinks for their program by copying our format.  We have the second most AAs so even though we seem over loaded it is not too much of a problem as a general policy.  I think the best way to shorten the section might be to eliminate the "^" and use italics or underlining to represent consensus and unanimous.  I think many of the players who we want to say are important are important due to their recent good will production due to recent athletic production.  Even though Chad Henne and Ryan Mallett are important to Michigan football, they have not really earned their place on the template.  There will be several 2007 All Big Ten awardees and I don't think either will be first team.  However, I will not contest this section due to your explanation of a need for a catch all section, which catches them too.  I guess we are doing O.K.  I left something at Talk:Gerald Ford about whether they want our big template or just the retired numbers one.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD)  21:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You make a good reasoned point about the length of the template being the result of the inordinate number of AAs, Pro Bowlers, etc, who have come out of the U-M program as opposed to other programs.  As for specific people in the OIF category, I think Henne is just like Morris and Breaston.  Though he never made All-American and may never be a Pro-Bowler, he is the holder of a number of very significant all-time U-M records, including the all-time career record for passing yards.  I included Mallett mostly because of his central importance to the current program, but he also holds the U-M record for the longest pass from scrimmage in school history with a 97 yard pass to Manningham in the Nov. 2007 Wisconsin game).  Cbl62 (talk) 22:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Another thought on shortening the template.  If the Alumni Active in the NFL section is kept, it should be limited to the REAL NFL.  Guys like Adam Stenavich who are playing in the NFL Europe should not be included.  Cbl62 (talk) 05:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thoughts on revising Template 

message: This Brandon Wiliams: nfl pfr has the hardest WP decision to make.  He is easily confused with this Brandon Williams nfl pfr. He has no stats.  He hardly played at Michigan.  What is going on here?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD)  02:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brandon Williams 

message: Should Matt Gutierrez and Justin Fargas be on our template?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD)  22:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, Fargas never did anything that great plus he transfered to USC. Gutierrez never did anything either. michfan2123 (talk) 22:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Matt Gutierrez & Justin Fargas 

message: I added Harbaugh to the Pro bowlers, but my edit summary got garbled.  Here is the link: http://www.pro-football-reference.com/misc/pb1995.htm  —Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) 00:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Harbaugh 

message: Is there a good reason that the template consistently spells J. Elliot with one 't' but wikilinks to the Jumbo Elliott (American football) article with two 't's? Not that Jumbo Elliott (American football) consistently spells it with two 't's, but mostly it uses two.
Further, the P.Elliott wikilink redirects to a one 't' spelling for the main article Pete Elliot, which then uses two 't's throughout in open defiance of the article title.
(At least Bump is fully consistent.) Is there a definitive source on the spellings? -- Michael Devore (talk) 05:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I fixed it, it is Elliott. michfan2123 (talk) 15:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like you fixed all of the Elliot(t) associated articles too. Excellent. Michael Devore (talk) 15:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yea, it was a problem. His article was at Elliot so I moved the page to Elliott. Good job catching that. There is no more Elliot. michfan2123 (talk) 15:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Elliott and Elliot 

message: I'm just as excited about the coaching change as any of the maize and blue faithful, but, we're still in the Lloyd Carr era for a couple more weeks, so, I put him and his staff back in, right above Rich Rod and his staff. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think this is how we should leave it until after the Capital One Bowl. If not that, then we should remove Rich Rod and his staff completely. They're not the Michigan staff yet. The template should reflect the current staff. Trogdor077 05:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD)  16:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leave in Carr... for now 

message: Keith Bostic was invited to one Pro Bowl and lost the tiebreaker for a second invitation.  The template shows two Pro Bowls.  I think we should change it to 1 and am going to do so.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD)  16:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Keith Bostic Pro Bowl count 

message: I don't favor creating a "Type 4" All-American on the template.  The Sporting News is one of the major All-American selectors.  It is not an un-recognized or second-rate selector.  As I've been saying for some time, I think the template is way too long and complicated as it is.  I'd be inclined to do the following: 
1. Limit the All-American selections to those who we can verify were a legitimate first-team All-American.  Under this standard, a Rick Volk belongs.  A Bubba Paris may end up having to drop off. I've done research and can't find any contemporaraneous record of Paris having been A-A.
2. Collapse the multiple listings of individuals who have won 2 or 3 times.  The double-listings take up a lot of space.
3. Eliminate references to unanimous, consensus, or any other variation of A-A from the template.  That level of detail can be left to the articles on individual players.
4. Eliminate the template category for current NFL players.  Simply being in the NFL, even as a second or third stringer is not, in my view, notable enough to be included in the Michigan Wolverines Football template.  I think including Pro Bowlers (and maybe All-Pros), Pro Football HOF, and even 1st round picks is useful, but inclusion of all current NFL'ers seems excessive.
5. Eliminate the "Active First-Team All Big Ten Players at Michigan."  Again, and per the discussion at the College Football project site, the template is way too long and needs to be shortened.  This seems to me like another good candidate for deletion.
6. Consider eliminating the "Big 10 Championship" seasons section.  Right now, it's not so useful because there are so many unwritten articles.  But I think this section could be very useful as the articles get filled in.
7. The "Other Important Figures" section should be kept narrow.  My original concept was to cover someone who is an all-time record holder not listed elsewhere (e.g., Henne and Hart) or truly legendary figures who just don't fit elsewhere (e.g., Canham and Ufer).  I'd consider dropping guys like Gordon Bell, Dennis Franklin, Tai Streets, and Jon Vaughan.
The one thing that was clear from the discussion on the College Football project page was the overwhelming consensus that the template is too long.  Rather than creating even more categories, and sub-categories (e.g., Type 4 All-Americans), we should be thiking of ways to shorten and simplify the template.  You and I have both worked hard to improve the template, and I don't think either of us should make unilateral decisions.  If we disagree, I suggest we discuss and try to reach a consensus.  Let me know your thoughts.Cbl62 (talk) 01:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the College Football Hall of Fame section could also be dropped.  There is nobody on that list who is not also listed either as an All-American or Coach, so it doesn't result in inclusion of anyone who would otherwise not be listed.  All these categories are nice, but we have to make some decisions on how to shorten the template.Cbl62 (talk) 02:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Since all four players in the "Active First-Team All Big Ten Players at Michigan" section are now inactive (Manningham, Henne, Long, Krauss are all leaving UM), that section seems like the easiest one to delete.  Unless I hear a different view, I propose dropping that section right away.Cbl62 (talk) 02:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would support eliminating both Hall of Fames with a College HOF asterisk in the A-A section and a Pro HOF asterisk in the Pro Bowl section (not sure about George Allen).  I would like to keep both sections, but if we have to shrink those are two good ones.  I would support eliminating all practice squad players. I would support eliminating the Other important figures section largely if not entirely.  Have this year's All-Big Ten teams been announced?  I think the 2007 players should be on the template.  I also think the 2006 players should be on until opening day rosters are set for next year. Has Manningham declared for the draft?  The All-Big Ten players are important and should be kept until their professional status is determined.  I find the Big Ten Championships section informative.  I referenced it quite a bit writing articles.  Most listings of A-A players distinguish unanimous, consensus and regular.  Since we are a tertiary source, we should convey that information which is important to secondary sources.  Most listings of A-A players lists years if multiple listings is not the way to do so choose another method.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) 03:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need to shorten the template 

message: I have substantilly revamped the template.  Instead of having it serve as an article in and of itself, I have returned it to the original concept of being a template that guides the viewer into the articles.  To resolve any and all All-American controversies, I have removed the debate from the template and created a new and separate Michigan Wolverines Football All-Americans page, which is linked in the template.  I have also collapsed all of the various categories, many of which resulted in a single player being listed as many as seven or eight times.  Instead, we know have a clean run of players of importance.  The details of their qualifications can be found by either reviewing the individual articles or by clicking on the various lists icons for passing records, rushing records, All-Americans, etc.  This cuts the lenghth of the template substantially while at the same time allowing room to include a broader list of players.Cbl62 (talk) 07:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally preferred it the way it was before where I could see why a player was relevant to the template by looking at the template.  I also dislike the arbitrary eras of importance.  The template now again invites addition of everyone's favorite players in an arbitrary manner.  However, I will await feedback.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD)  12:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Which current NFL and Michigan players were eliminated in the conversion?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD)  13:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

text: There was utility in having subdivisions for each category of award, but the very strong consensus on the College Football WikiProject page was that the old format was way too long and complicated, effectively trying to become an article rather than a template.  By moving the detailed discussion of All-Americans, Heisman winners, MVPs etc. to separate articles with links on the template, I think we address those concerns.  The new format is much shorter, and if the perception remains that it is still too long, it can be shortened further by getting stricted on who gets listed in the template.  As for the three eras, I thought it was helpful to split the players up chronologically for ease of reference.  For example, if someone is interested only in the modern era, they can look only at the last group and not get bogged down in player from 60 or 100 years ago.  Far from being arbitrary, I tried to come up with time periods that made sense and resulted in rougly equal divisio of the players.  The middle period tracks the years when Bo Schembechle was coach.  The remaining two sections are the pre-Bo and post-Bo periods.  I only eliminated the lesser players, but if there is someone who you think has been inappropriately dropped let me know.Cbl62 (talk) 15:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am confused on which players were added and which were removed.  Did you add all type 4 A-As? At first glance I see a few missing.  It seems some marginal guys who never fell under any of the previous categories are still in.  Some active players like Askew are not.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD)  01:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Revamping of template

message: I doubt he will ever play another game as a Wolverine, should we remove him yet? michfan2123 (talk) 15:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've heard rumors but was't sure how solid.  I'll take him off for now.Cbl62 (talk) 15:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I heard he may go with a passing/running play platoon.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD)  01:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mallett 

message: I've looked at other sports teaem template, and don't find any others with multiple subcategories of important figures.  All seem to go with a single "important figures" section.  See   .  I think this supports the revamping.  The one thing I did different was to divide into three time periods as noted in prior section.  Frankly, our template still has way more people than the others, and we should probably try to prune it further.Cbl62 (talk) 15:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your point about the length and format of other important figure sections.  I still prefer to know why a player is important by merely looking at the template, however.  I think college football may have different concerns than pro baseball with respect to important figures.  What do you think about a separate template with three sections (Active NFLers, NFL practice squad and All-Big Ten)?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD)  01:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Compare other templates

message: I find the template less useful with the doubly hidden format.  Does anyone else agree?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD)  18:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doubly hidden format 

message: For quite some time, there's been a consensus that the template was bloated and needed trimming.  I decided to be bold and give it a shot.  The "Important Figures" section is the easiest pick for removal, as it is too subjective IMO. I also dropped the "Playing Fields" and "Big Ten Championships" as the groupings that I thought could most easily be lost.  If anyone disagrees, feel free to discuss here.  Cbl62 (talk) 05:25, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trimming