Template talk:Infobox NFL retired

Jersey numbers
Is this field really necessary for retired athletes? It doesn't seem to be significant enough in football compared to other sports. Ksy92003 (talk)  21:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Question
is this infobox for only retired Hall of Famers or all retired football players?--Yankees10 22:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Name
Can someone add Name to the infobox so it says, for example Steve Young instead of Steve Young (American football) in the infobox--Yankees10 22:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * That was just a typo on the steve young article. I accidentally capitalized the N in the name field.  You only need to specify names on disambig articles. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  01:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

NFL career stats v Career stats
There was actually some discussion on this so I removed the NFL qualifier. The box could actually be used on a retired CFL player as well. The pro-ref is an optional field so the career stats are not necessarily unique to the information that is on pro-ref. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 18:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, sorry. I didn't know this was the case. Seems like a fine answer.--Mike Selinker 18:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh no reason to apologize. We actually had a discussion about how to name the template - we were thinking American football retired but it just seemed to get too difficult so we settled on NFLretired.  I'm certainly thinking we could still move it - i'm just not sure how to keep everyone happy. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  18:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Problem with non-NFL stats
For people who played in more than one league, (e.g. Doug Flutie, USFL, CFL; Warren Moon, CFL) it tries to make the "debutyear" and "finalyear" values into NFL seasons. This is no good. Not only does it screw up CFL players, but what about people who played USFL, AFL, WFAF, XLF, Arena, etc.? It must be fixed, and you don't want me doing it because I'm prolly mess it up something fierce. Kevlar67 20:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Never mind, I just found "Infobox Pro Football player retired" Allthough it still assumes that everyone went to an American College. Kevlar67 21:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

This template is superfluous and often incorrect
The template "Infobox Pro Football player" allows CORRECT indication of things like Common Draft (not NFL draft in 1967, 1968 and 1969); AFL All-Star games vs. NFL and AFC-NFC Pro Bowls; etc. Also, many well known players such as Billy Shaw, Paul Lowe, Abner Haynes, etc. played all of their careers in the American Football League, and are not "NFLretired". Many players who had some years in the NFL had MORE years in the AFL, like Lance Alworth, Jim Otto, Gino Cappelletti, etc. These players should not be lumped under "NFL". Finally, the template is superfluous because stats for players show their final year. If it was 1969, 1972, 1984, etc., do we really need a "retired" template? If it's so important to note retired status, the bio can simply state "So-and-so is a retired Pro Football player . . . .". SugnuSicilianu 22:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Hall of Fame
Should we change the color of the "Hall of Fame" section to match what is used in and ? --Pinkkeith (talk) 19:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Incomplete info compared to active infobox
Why no birthplace? Debut team? No playing height/weight? —xanderer (talk) 23:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Weight seems pointless. It assumes that a player kept the same weight for an entire career. srushe (talk) 10:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * All of player's teams, from debut onward, should be listed in the "teams" category.  And I'm sure you could add birthplace in there if you wanted to do so.-- 2008 Olym pian chit chat 18:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Upgrade this template to use Template:Infobox
I propose that we upgrade this template to use Template:Infobox, to standardize it with other infoboxes. It also makes the code easier to read and therefore easier to maintain and make changes. I have worked on a version which can be found at Template:Infobox NFLretired/sandbox; it looks pretty much the same visually, with some of the fancy alignment removed so that it appears more similar to other infoboxes for standardization purposes. I have tested the sandbox version with a few dozen articles and the new infobox looks great on them, retaining the same information in the same positions, etc. Gary King  ( talk ) 03:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I like this idea, for the time that it was up it looked about the same only taking up less space, easier code and the info is the same. No reason to not support.-- Giants27 (  c  |  s ) 12:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay done, I've reimplemented it. Let me know on this page if there are any problems with the template. Gary King  ( talk ) 21:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no reason to change this infobox and I wouldn't call it "upgrading it". Your verison looks completely disoriented and I am not aware of any logical reason for this. Thanks --Phbasketball6 (talk) 03:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The new version makes it a LOT easier to edit the template in the future, if you want to add/remove fields, etc. I don't see why we should only allow people who understand complex template code to be able to edit it when we could simplify it AND use the standard infobox template to conform with the visual design of other infoboxes. Gary King  ( talk ) 05:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with Phbasketball6 i'm not a big fan of the change.--Yankees10 16:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Like I said before, look at the code it's not insane like this version. I see no reason not to change.-- Giants27 (  c  |  s ) 16:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * For those of you who don't want to change, could you please give a reason besides the fact that you simply want to avoid change? I see that you are both significant contributors to this template so perhaps there's some COI here, too. Gary King  ( talk ) 16:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I dont like the way it looks. Thats my reason--Yankees10 16:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Which part? It's not all that different from the old version, and we can still customize infobox further using clean CSS. Gary King  ( talk ) 16:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is very different, the player's name sticks out like a sore thumb on your verison and the jersey # lining up under birthdate is pointless and doesn't look right, whats wrong with this infobox... it is not difficult for people like me to add this infobox to player's articles. ...and who cares about the code seriously it is long but come on it is not bothering me. Thanks --Phbasketball6 (talk) 04:46, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Have a look around and you'll see that this is the standard infobox design. It's this infobox that stands out like a sore thumb, which is what brought it to my attention in the first place. Gary King  ( talk ) 05:19, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not 100% against your decision on update the infobox.. but if you can leave the jersey # where it current is that would be great, and also can you make the Jersey # not show when it is not used because I would like this infobox to be used for coaches. Thanks --Phbasketball6 (talk) 16:34, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay done; can you check it out at Template:Infobox NFLretired/sandbox, and let me know if it's ready to be implemented? If you want to test an article with it, then replace the old template with this one and preview it to see how it will look like. Gary King  ( talk ) 23:44, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * So can we move forward on this now? Gary King  ( talk ) 21:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * This is why Template:Infobox Gridiron football person is better...-- Giants27 (  c  |  s ) 17:21, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

No not at all, that infobox is garabage and your complaining that the code on this one is long... look at that one... too long and too unorganized. Thanks --Phbasketball6 (talk) 19:37, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm saying for retired players going into coaching not in general.-- Giants27 (  c  |  s ) 19:56, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I know what you mean but I feel this infobox could be better for those purposes easily. Thanks --Phbasketball6 (talk) 20:36, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, I have gone ahead and replaced the template with the new version. Gary King  ( talk ) 04:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Nicely done. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Not entering a caption
It appears that this template displays an apostrophe-like character when an image caption is not used. Is this intentional?--Rockfang (talk) 20:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay fixed Gary King  ( talk ) 21:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)