As per WP:FONTSIZE, small text should not be used in the infobox, but it appears that it's fairly widespread, particularly where it is used to note when players were only on the practice squad or on the team during the offseason. I've created Category:Infobox NFL player articles with small text to track this, and I plan to remove this small text using WP:AWB imminently. and I think the best way forward is to remove this small text using WP:AWB. Interested editors may wish to consider whether they would like to handle this text with a new parameter, similar to the discussion occurring for the Infobox gridiron football person template. ~ RobTalk05:52, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
@BU Rob13: The use of the small text for the practice squad note has been part of the standard formatting for the NFL player infobox for all of my six years working on CFB and NFL player articles. It was part of the original consensus to include off-season, preseason and practice squad tenures in the career history of NFL players. It is included in a significant percentage of the 14,000+ transclusions of the template, and a large number of editors have worked to include that level of consistent formatting in those articles. By removing it, the inclusion of the off-season, preseason and practice squad tenures becomes seriously misleading. I urge you not to make any unilateral actions without getting significant input from your fellow WP:CFB and WP:NFL editors. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 06:07, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
@Dirtlawyer1: Oh, I don't plan to remove the text, just the small tags. I'll hold off on removing it pending comments, which is why I posted here (imminently was a terrible choice of words), but I struggle to see how any policy-based rationale could justify inclusion of the small text rather than making it normal-sized given the policy of WP:FONTSIZE. I'll post project notices in a moment, was just taking care of some stuff first. Sorry for any confusion caused by my strong wording. ~ RobTalk06:12, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
@BU Rob13: Please do not take any widespread action without consulting your fellow WP:CFB and WP:NFL editors first. There should be an agreed-to alternative in place before any action is taken; making such widespread AWB edits contrary to established consensus could be construed as WP:DISRUPTIVE. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 06:17, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Rob, actually, WP:FONTSIZE is a guideline, not a policy. Some of us have been around long enough to know the difference. And when existing consensus formatting has been in place for 6+ years, there is clearly no emergency that needs to be resolved in the next 24 hours. Dial it down a notch and let's see if we can't find an alternative that works for everyone -- that might take a few days. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 07:24, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Other than my unfortunate choice of words in my original post, which I've already noted, I've not said anything that should indicate that I'm in a rush. To be clear, I'll repeat: I have not made any AWB edits and will hold off pending comments. The difference between policy and guideline is an interesting one, and something I did not know, so thank you for linking me to it. Fortunately, WP:Local consensus applies to guidelines as well, so my previous comment is still valid. ~ RobTalk07:29, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
That's not the only issue with career footnotes; they are indented using a colon, generating a definition list. A singular footnote is no list, much less a definitions one. Alakzi (talk) 08:27, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
@Alakzi: Does this have accessibility implications or other practical effects? I admittedly am not at all well-versed in the specifics of the HTML behind using wiki markup, or HTML at all for that matter. ~ RobTalk08:45, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
We've got {{pad}}, but perhaps we should add a footnotes parameter to the infobox, to avoid having to repeat a design element. Alakzi (talk) 09:06, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Even ignoring the accessibility issue, I think the latter is more visually appealing. Thanks for the mock-up. ~ RobTalk10:13, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
@Alakzi: What is the current relative percentage size of the text of Infobox NFL player relative to main body text? What was the then current relative percentage size of the text of Infobox NFL player relative to main body text on January 1, 2015? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:44, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
When was the infobox text reduced from 95 to 90%? Also, was the "let" -- the space between lines of infobox text -- also reduced? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:29, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
The font size hasn't been reduced; it was increased, at your request, from 90% to 95%. I don't recall the leading having been reduced, either. Alakzi (talk) 14:38, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I recall making that request in reaction to what I perceived as the shrinking size of the infobox text, which was altering the visual appearance of the infobox. The coding base for this template was changed from pure HTML mark-up to using Template:Infobox as its base sometime in February 2015, correct? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:18, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Sort of. It was converted to use {{Infobox}} sometime before then by Frietjes, but she'd kept the tables for the height and weight, and had not used header cells for the remaining vital statistics' labels. Alakzi (talk) 15:24, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
No-one's voiced opposition yet (just caution), but I think it would be wise to wait another 24-48 hours before proceeding to give involved editors a chance to respond. ~ RobTalk16:31, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, A, I know I've been poked. LOL I was still contemplating what can be done. We can leave the infobox main text at 95% (still looks small to me, but I am going to review it on several other monitors and browsers later) and use 85% text for practice squad note. Perhaps there is another visual effect we can use for the practice squad note -- italics? Shaded text? One alternative is to use an explanatory footnote instead, but that would require thousands of edits to the affected articles.
Also, related, but different problem: we need to increase the let for the plain list fields for the lists of teams and honors and wards. As presently coded, the let is unusually tight. That was why I was inquiring about the history of the edits to the template base, as well as the direct edits to the infobox text size. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:09, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't plan to comment much on the aesthetic, but I wanted to note that if the solution requires consistent formatting across articles, it should be accomplished with a new parameter as Alakzi mocked up. Italics may seem simple enough to apply in-article, but it's likely we'd be back here in a year's time when new editors who cannot be expected to know about this discussion have created new articles with small text. ~ RobTalk17:17, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't want to rush this, but given that there's no opposition to removing the small text, here's what I would propose. Why don't we create a new parameter a la Alakzi's mock-up to start? We can leave that formatting for now with the grey text, and continue the discussion on what the final aesthetic should be. Since the appearance of the footnote will be achieved by a parameter, it would be easy to change the formatting in all articles at the same time once the parameter is in use. You could just change the formatting of the note on the template, and you'd be all set. This will achieve immediate compliance with WP:FONTSIZE, will use something that we all can live with as an intermediary, and will allow the final discussion on formatting to take place at a leisurely pace with no pressing concerns about compliance to guidelines. I think the temporary change would clearly be a net positive for the project; it achieves compliance with guidelines immediately, while the only issue left to be decided is a matter of personal taste. I think it's uncontroversial to say that guidelines outweigh personal taste every time. Thoughts on this solution? ~ RobTalk05:05, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
That would be fine with me. (I've also increased the spacing between list items slightly.) Is it always the same footnote? Could we get away with a simple on/off switch? Alakzi (talk) 05:38, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Using the footnote that you had in your mock-up, a simple on/off would work. That's the most general form I've seen of the footnote. Sometimes people type the more specific "Preseason and/or practice roster only", but that is a subset of "Offseason ...", and consistency in the footnote is likely a good thing. It avoids confusion among readers that are viewing multiple articles. ~ RobTalk06:22, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
With no opposition, I'd say we're good to make the change, keeping in mind that it's extremely easy to change the formatting of a simple on/off parameter should opinions about it change at a later date. Would you mind introducing the parameter, Alakzi? I'll hold off the actual article changes for another 1-2 days to allow a little more time for comments to see if any opposition emerges. ~ RobTalk04:03, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
@Alakzi: None of the test cases are showing the proposed change. Also, can you explain how is the proposed new notation to be invoked? Is there a switch to be included in the template? If so, how do we propose to convert the existing thousands of existing to uses to the new coding? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:43, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Test cases added. Yes, there is a switch; it can be invoked with |pastteamsnote=yes. Rob appears to have offered to convert existing uses with AWB; he can do so at his leisure. Alakzi (talk) 13:46, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
@Alakzi: In your estimation, this solution is 100% compliant with WP:ACCESSIBILITY? The shaded text does not present any related accessibility problems for visually-impaired readers? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:00, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
It does not violate WP:COLOR, no. Do you find the shaded text unappealing? The note is also 90% of the infobox text (that is, 12 pixels in size); we don't need to keep both the reduced font size and the shading, I imagine. Alakzi (talk) 14:09, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Okay, good. Can we get an example in which the note text is 85% of main body text size? I believe 85% is the minimum per the accessibility standards, correct? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:12, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
@Dirtlawyer1: Yes, 11 pixels is the minimum. See below. Due to the fact that the infobox base font size was increased to 95%, some browsers will round the left column up to 11 pixels, while others will round it down to 10. Alakzi (talk) 14:22, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
It's also worth noting that, while 11px is a bright line rule, WP:FONTSIZE indicates reduced size text should be used sparingly. When there are alternatives that are equal in terms of function, they are preferable. Regardless of the outcome regarding the aesthetic, what's your opinion on the use of a parameter in general Dirtlawyer1? I assume it's preferable to individual application of footnotes, since it's standardized and easy for new editors to apply. ~ RobTalk14:58, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
In order to better illustrate the proposed change, I have added example team tenures to the talk page mock-ups above. Can anyone explain why the let (i.e. line height of the infobox text) noticeably varies across the three examples? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:16, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Also, while we're fixing this accessibility issue, we should also address the fact that the asterisk in this type font is relatively small in comparison to the actual text. Perhaps we should use another more noticeable symbol/glyph to designate the offseason/practice squad tenures? Suggestions? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:23, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, with current micro asterisk, persons with 20/20 vision have an ACCESSIBILITY problem -- it's barely noticeable in normal size mainbody text, but it virtually disappears in 85% or small text. Clearly, it would be easier for editors if we used a glyph from the standard ASCII keyboard, but that presents a very limited set of options. In the past I've sought the help of Graham87, who is either blind (or nearly so) and uses screen-reader software. Maybe we should ask for his help -- I bet he has some good ideas for footnote glyphs we might use. Let's see what he says. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:32, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure ... "^" would be fine, or just about any other symbol. It's probably better to suggest a symbol and find out what I think; ping me if you do that. I'm totally blind so can't comment on font size issues. Graham8702:07, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
{{Dagger}} is an image because it's the most compatible means of ensuring that a screen-reader has something to read out (by setting its alt text). As a bonus, you can actually set its alt text to be the full text from the footnote (as long as it's no too long or used too often as it then becomes annoying). For example {{dagger|alt=Offseason and/or practice squad member only}} produces †, which, as you can see if you examine the element, has the full text. By placing that next to the team name, a screen reader would get the info immediately without having to find the footnote later on as they were reading through the table. As the next best option, the # symbol is bigger than * in all likely fonts and is easy to type as well as being read normally by JAWS. --RexxS (talk) 02:22, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
I would prefer any option that does not involve images. We shouldn't have to resort to that to accomplish accessibility. Alakzi (talk) 07:31, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
I've looked into the use of ARIA attributes, but it seems to be prohibitively complex to maintain. Perhaps this is the best we can do. Alakzi (talk) 09:54, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
(#) would accomplish it easily enough, but that would be the sort of thing that would need to be manually changed in all articles. I doubt a bot could accomplish it, because the * character is also being used in the same field for bulletpoints, and we wouldn't want to change those. Personally, I think the * meets accessibility requirements. The character may have white space built into it, but the font is still 11pt. I doubt the guideline was intended to exclude white space built into a character, because that would mean asterisks in our main body text are non-compliant. By the way, I've gone ahead and submitted a bot approval request for an AWB bot to take care of moving things over to the new parameter. While the aesthetic is not finalized yet, the on/off switch has been agreed upon, and the built-in aesthetic is easily changed later, as previously noted. ~ RobTalk07:40, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
It should be fairly trivial with regexes; simply replace \* *^ with # inside the parameter. You could add it to your BRFA. Alakzi (talk) 07:52, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
I can do this with that bot and regex, yes, but I'd like a final yea or nay on the change before adding it to the BRFA. I don't believe there's been clear support for the use of # yet. I can always submit another BRFA if needed. ~ RobTalk09:26, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
The BRFA to complete the conversion to the new parameter was approved and the task has been run. I'm using AWB now to convert the remaining articles that were not covered by the rules approved for use in the BRFA. Hopefuly Category:Infobox NFL player articles with small text will be empty by the end of today. ~ RobTalk18:06, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your efforts on this, Rob. I'm sure this took a little longer than you originally anticipated, but 14,000+ NFL player infoboxes are now fully compliant with WP:ACCESSIBILITY guidelines, and it was accomplished with a minimum of controversy. Everyone with whom I have spoken seems to be pleased with the outcome. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:23, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
There were a handful of articles (around 10) that had footnotes other than the one talked about here. In those cases, I kept the footnotes as they were (in a list), but removed small tags to comply with FONTSIZE. I didn't place any in lists that weren't there before. If you care to fix those with a new parameter for miscellaneous footnotes or some other method, you'll find all such articles within my last 50 contributions, and none of them would have been handled with AWB. ~ RobTalk15:04, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Rob, Alakzi is probably the wrong guy to handle the substance of those notes. If you can provide a list of player names or set of links to those articles with the additional infobox notes, I would be grateful. In six years of working on NFL articles, this is the first time I have encountered these, and they need to be critically reviewed. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk)
@Dirtlawyer1: I don't have any such list, unfortunately, or I would provide it. Looking through my recent contributions, I'm not finding many. It may be less than 10. More like two or three. I remember one other that used an additional footnote to denote teams he played minor league baseball on, but I didn't find that in looking through quickly. A few other footnotes I relocated to parentheses, mostly ones that denoted one day contracts. If I recall correctly, there were a total of 19 articles that I manually edited in a way other than just adding the new parameter. The edits were things like moving coaching information from "pastteams" to "pastcoaching", moving highlights from "pastteams" to "highlights", and other things like that which weren't being handled by my use of AWB. They can all be found in my recent contribs. I don't know how useful digging through my contribs for two or three articles is, and it's not something I plan to do. ~ RobTalk15:37, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
I think it would make sense to wait for the merge to be completed, but I have no objection. Which way the redirect runs in the short-term doesn't really matter. ~ RobTalk21:16, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Correct. In fact, most NFL coaches already use Infobox NFL player, not Infobox NFL coach. That said, I'm not in love with the name "Infobox NFL biography". Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:46, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
I just did a quick review of what other sports projects are titling their personnel infoboxes. Based on the variety of names for other sports personnel infoboxes, here are the leading options for names for the "merged" NFL template:
Infobox NFL biography;
Infobox NFL football biography;
Infobox NFL career;
Infobox NFL football career;
Infobox NFL person;
Infobox NFL football person;
Infobox NFL personnel;
Infobox NFL football personnel;
Infobox NFL player (leave as is); or
Infobox NFL football player.
I have posted these options on the talk page of WikiProject National Football League (WP:NFL), and asked the project members for their opinion: [1]. As the principal users of this template, it is appropriate that they be consulted.
BTW, everyone participating in this discussion understands that the existing Infobox NFL player already supports coaching parameters, right? This is not so much a "merge," as it is a replacement of the existing Infobox NFL coach with the existing (perhaps with some tweaks) Infobox NFL player. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:15, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
A complete merge would isolate all changes to the template, with no changes needed on any other page. On the other hand, a replacement requires changes on each page that currently transcludes {{Infobox NFL coach}}. Each option requires a slightly different skillset to execute. I'll leave it to the worker bees to decide their preference.—Bagumba (talk) 22:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
