Template talk:2008 Big 12 Conference football standings

Can we align this to show on the left side of the page? It looks awkward on the right side.Topgun530 (talk) 13:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's an infobox, which per wikipedia style, goes on the right. I created it to match the style used by other conferences such as Template:2008 Big Ten football standings. I suggest either placing it to the right of the schedule, or under the team infobox such as what is done on this page 2008 Bowling Green Falcons football team Ryan2845 (talk) 15:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Winning Percentage

I think the winning percentage should be deleted. No one uses it to compute football standings. Everyone plays virtually the same number of games. Baseball uses winning percentage, not football.Topgun530 (talk) 04:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Fine by me, I just reused the template that the Big 10 was using, removed. Ryan2845 (talk) 05:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Alrighty! That looks so much better.Topgun530 (talk) 13:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to standardize conference standings across CFB project

For those interested, please see the discussion here related to standardizing conference standings templates: Talk:2008 NCAA Division I FBS football season#Proposal to standardize conference standings across CFB project Ryan2845 (talk) 20:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Bolding of division winner

"Bold Indicates Clinched Division". The problem with this wording on the template is that the team whose article you are viewing will always be bolded. See, for instance, 2008 Texas A&M Aggies football team. →Wordbuilder (talk) 17:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Good point, I guess we should switch it back to having a superscript character to denote winner. Although, i'm still of the opinion that no designation should be needed if it isn't a tie. To me, if there's no tie then obviously the first team listed is the division winner... Ryan2845 (talk) 21:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Bold

Why are half of the teams bolded? Because they're bowl eligible? If so, shouldn't that be noted in the template?Topgun530 (talk) 19:51, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Bold shouldn't be used since when viewing the template on another article, a team could be bolded when they are not bowl eligible. Actually, I'm not sure "bowl eligible" should even be noted in the standings. It's pretty apparent who's bowl eligible just by looking at the number of wins a team has. — X96lee15 (talk) 20:26, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, it's pretty well known that 6 wins = bowl eligible, no need to make a special notation for it. Ryan2845 (talk) 20:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)