Template talk:Infobox football biography/Archive 2

ntupdate
Should this be mandatory? Surely this should only be applied to current players or at the most living players. I think once a player has passed on we can assume this record to be static? 10:33, 26 March 2006 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fasach Nua (talk • contribs)


 * I refer you to Template:Football player infobox2, for retired players, as mentioned on the main section of this template. When a player retires, it's easy to change the template by simply adding "2" to the end of the first line:

{{Football player infobox → {{Football player infobox2


 * much obliged ty Fasach Nua 19:52, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * On an unrelated issue, please be careful not to delete useful comments, as you did with the above section. Slumgum | yap | stalk | 19:45, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Links in infoboxes are a good thing
As it is mentioned that links are not advised to be placed in player infoboxes, I just thought I'd start a discussion about it, because I disagree! Sure the clubs, birthplace etc. should be mentioned elsewhere in the article, but it's better to have a standard one-stop place to find such info - why bother having the infobox otherwise?!

I'm only making a stand here as I recently added and homogenised the infoboxes for the entire Liverpool squad, just to find someone reverting the Daniel Agger one to have no links and citing this page! grrr... Alii h 17:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Me=someone. I think it's important to use the same guidelines for every player. Using different style standards is against the entire idea of an encyclopedia's method of organization. Saying "all Liverpool players have links" is no good argument for going against the standards - the number one priority is to agree on a common solution enforced universally. Personally I'm pretty indeferent whether as to link or not, but let us do the same thing for all articles. Poulsen 18:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Number of appearances
Should the number of appearances shown be starts only, or include sub appearances.....? The template doesn't allow the normal format of X appearances (plus Y as sub) ChrisTheDude 12:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree (that's why I added the column headings so readers aren't misled), but the problem is that this style is now entrenched in at least several hundred footballer articles. We could have another template that used the 'normal format', but having two similar templates with two different and confusing overlapping information formats would be a separate problem. --Sam Pointon 13:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree it's not going to be feasible to change the existing templates, I was just trying to make sure I used the right numbers when I added the template to Darren Byfield. I have used the number of starts, taken from Soccerbase..... ChrisTheDude 13:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I have always used just the total appearances. I think it's pretty standard in football to just list all appearances regardless of whether it was only 5 minutes on the field as a sub, or after being subbed off. If you look at historical records it's rare to ever see the number of sub appearances listed seperately. If you come on as a sub for a national team you are still given a cap.

While sub appearance details can be illuminating, in my opinion they are not needed and definitely not standard. The current situation is fine in my eyes. I mean, are you going to start arguing that we need to list goal assists, pass completion rates or number of tackles? All of these statistics are very recent in their use... aLii 19:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't exactly say it was standard to just lump all the appearances together. I have in front of me a programme for my club (Gillingham) and in the stats section it shows the season and career appearance records for all the players, and sub appearances are given separately e.g. John Hodge's season stat was 1(+14)   ChrisTheDude 06:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Using the number of starts alone is wrong. Theoretically, a player's stats for a club could be 0 (3) - looking as if he's scored 3 goals in 0 matches. Personally I would prefer the sub apps to appear as follows: England 106+0 (49). It's a good way of showing whether a player is a fringe player or whatever. But I'm not sure if it would be instantly and universally understood.  SLUMGUM   yap    stalk   23:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Idea - an extra parameter in the template to specify which format you're using and have the infobox display the appropriate column headings. This has the downside of multiple formats, but the plus-side of being able to update the format without needing a separate infobox. Would something like this be possible and not be too confusing? --Sam Pointon 23:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Throughout the English media Owen Hargreaves is listed as having 30 caps for England. In the prose they almost always then note that he's had only 7 starts. Surely, rather than continuing to expand (the already pretty large) infobox, we could do the same and mention in the prose whether a player is regular or not? Getting substitute appearance details from more than a few years ago could be a real pain for some players. aLii 07:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Source parameter?
Would it be worthwhile adding a source parameter to this infobox? I'm thinking of something along the lines of Infobox Cricketer. It may help to keep track of vandalism and unreferenced edits. --Muchness 14:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I came here to post that. The ideal would be that we have some standard reference for certain statistics (is there an official FIFA site that we can get international appearances/goals from, for example?), and then just include that source in the infobox.  A second-best would be everyone using their own sources as needed, but then there should be a space to credit them in the infobox.  Unsourced statistics aren't good. --Delirium 02:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

caps(goals)?
If it's for Appearances, why is the parameter named " "? -- Jared Hunt 09:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * historically it was for "caps", which are often the same thing as appearances. I guess the real reason it wasn't changed behind the scenes is because of the amount of work it would take to rewrite all the thousands of pages that use "caps(goals)". aLii 11:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Can a bot be used? I guess it's not too important though. -- Jared Hunt 21:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Goalies
Should there be a special infobox for goalkeepers? It seems odd to constantly be listing the goalies as scoring zero goals. Maybe there could be a GAA stat instead? Or shutouts? -- Loudsox 18:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Three words: Jose Luis Chilavert. --Sam Pointon 19:01, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I've used negatives to connote GAA, especially for non-scoring goalies (ie, Chilavert is an obvious exception). --Palffy 21:48, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Peter Schmeichel is another :)
 * Anyway my 2c is that the goals against stat is more to do with the team than the goalkeeper in most circumstances. aLii 14:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that goals conceded does not tell us very much about the goalkeeper. It tells us more about the team. As there are goalkeepers that score the occasional goal, the present infobox works. -- Alias Flood 17:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

But clean sheets should be a more relevant statistics than goal scored... not that the goals scored shouldn't be noted.

For example, the commentators today said that in the games Iker Casillas had represented Spain, he had a clean sheet in about half of them.TimHowardII (talk) 01:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Just out of interest, what on earth is GAA? I've been a football fan for 25 years and have never heard this term before...... ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Goals against average. Something that I have not seen applied to football. The title looks grammatically incorrect to me too. slυмgυм [ ←→ &#93; 21:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I have never ever seen that stat used in a football context and I feel its inclusion would certainly confuse the hell out of people. Certainly if I saw a player's stats given as something like 25 (-10) I wouldn't have the faintest idea what it was meant to signify...... ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

height standard
I think there should be a standard for what units are used in the height because for Thierry Henry for example it is put in both sets of measurements. Yonatanh 21:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I would say that's a good way of showing it. (6' 2" / 1.88 m) As long as both are accurate enough.   SLUMGUM    yap    stalk   03:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia promotes the use of units most relevant to the country from which the topic hails. This presents a question when a player comes from a country that uses imperial units but plays in a country using the metric system. In this instance, I would favour the use of the playing country's idiom, as the natural categorisation of footballers is by club, not by nationality. ⁂veila# 13:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I think there needs to be a standard as for some players it's 180cm and for some it's 1.8m and some have it just in feet and inches and some have it both ways, etc. Every possible combination can be done for any player, no matter where he's from. Ronaldinho for example now has his height in the customary system as well. Also, don't they use the metric system in England nowadays? Yonatanh 23:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Also how about date of birth, 1 July, 2006 or July 1, 2006. is 1 July, 2006 what's used in Europe as opposed to the states? Yonatanh 23:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, how about the nickname, same line with a comma seperating between the nicknames or two nicknames deserve two different lines? Yonatanh 01:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * WRT the DOB thing, Mediawiki handles that for you - if the date isn't horribly munged and it's linked, it'll convert the date to your preferred format. --Sam Pointon 01:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Where do I choose my preferred date format? Yonatanh 01:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * You will find date preferences (and other preferences) under 'my preferences' at the top of your page, near to your watchlist. -- Alias Flood 01:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Where are things such as what sort of height to use in this infobox decided? I really think a standard is needed. Yonatanh 15:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe the general MoS dictates that heights should be given in both metric and imperial units, so so long as both are given, it should be fine and satisfy all readers. --Sam Pointon 15:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes but it seems like there's a better way of going about this instead of one player saying 180cm (6' 4") and another saying 1.8m / 6'4" etc. Yonatanh 01:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I added a summary from the Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers) to a new Units of measurement section to remove any confusion.--Clawed 04:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Height template
Is the use of the template   allowed? --ChaChaFut 18:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Starting to use the template in all biographic infoboxes due to lack of response. --ChaChaFut 21:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I missed this. I use the template, although it doesn't always work, such as 1.82m being converted to 5ft 12in. Since there are 12in in a ft, it would be 6ft 0in.  Sʟυмgυм • т • c  21:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks. I will keep that in mind. --ChaChaFut 02:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd say no. By all means, use it to convert between metres and feet & inches, but there's no need to leave the template call in-line as the data's not going to change in the same way as it will for birth date and age. robwingfield «T•C» 14:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It's useful in maintaining a standardised format. I agree with Robwingfield in principle, but not in practice. If it was subst-able, I would recommend subst-ing. But it's not. Sʟυмgυм • т • c  16:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * So maybe the template should be amended so that it is? Or alternatively, just get rid of the linking that occurs on the template, which is very ugly-looking.  Regarding the standardised format, there already is one, as per WP:UNITS, which means in this case that if someone's 5 ft 10 in we would need to write  . robwingfield «T•C» 18:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * That seems like a lot of typing to me, and needs a calculator to make the conversion. This seems an excessive amount of work, rather than merely using the template. As already mentioned, use of the template also guarantees a consistent presentation. I agree however, that the links to the units are ugly and it would be also be better if there was a substitution available. Daemonic Kangaroo 18:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * A fair point. I'll compromise for the moment, then.  If someone uses the template then I won't re-edit to remove the template unless I have another edit to make.  I've raised the subject of removing the linking at Template talk:Height... I'll wait to see the verdict on that before proposing that someone redevelops the template so that it can be subst'd.  robwingfield «T•C» 21:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * My point is a mixture of the conversation above and this one.  — The player's height in the units most common within the country he plays. Alot of UK based players do not have the correct measurements first. Where appropriate 6ft 0in should be used. I think this is worthy of a drive to clean up UK player pages. Londo  06  18:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Linking discussion
Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football. aLii 19:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Forks
The infoboxes for managers are very similar to this one. Any reason we can't just merge them all into one, and maybe call it 'Infobox Football biography'? Flowerparty☀ 03:11, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and merged them. The only problem I can see is that the first parameter is called 'playername', even for managers who have not been players, but I don't suppose that really matters. Flowerparty☀ 03:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The rationale for having the multitude of infoboxen was that when a player retired, the only modification required was to change infobox to infobox2. Likewise if they moved into management, it was a simple modification. The interfaces were kept aligned for that purpose. ⁂veila# 12:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Debut information
Would anyone like to see two additional fields in the 'Club' section, namely 'debut' and 'first (league) goal' for the player's current club? It would be useful to see the date of a player's debut, and perhaps interesting to compare with how long a lpayer waited for his first goal. Comments anybody? Fedgin 09:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No thank you, I think the infobox is already quite epic enough as is! We need to leave at least something for the article itself. ⁂veila# 11:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Ditto. I think this info is better suited to a sentence.   Sʟυмgυм • т • c  13:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, fair enough. Fedgin 15:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Parentheses for goals
Parentheses (brackets) are used after appearances for goals in these boxes, e.g. 44 (10). I think this is a confusing convention because, in UK newspapers/websites at least, substitutions and not goals are given in brackets. I know it would take a bot to change it (assuming anyone agrees) but would it not be better to have it as 44 - 10, or 44, 10, just to avoid any confusion? Nach0king 22:10, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Contract end
I think it be a good idea with place to "Contract end". It could be under the header "Club information". What do you think?? ka la  ha  17:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe, but this sort of info is often very difficult to find, and loan deals can complicate matters. It is only useful for showing how long a club can expect a tranfer fee etc - it's no solid indication that the player will be at the club for any length of time. I would say it's better included in the main text.  Sʟυмgυм • т • c  18:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I can see your point, but it could just be "hidden", as "Date of death" etc. I think things like these belongs to an infobox. ka  la  ha  20:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I think this would be a great optional field to add to the infobox. jaco ♫ plane  22:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I concur. It would be a useful addition. Maybe also including an automated way of including a reference such as in Template:Infobox Ethnic group. --Bagande 22:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

editprotected I restart this point, as I still like the idea. This:

after the following |- would fix the templatebreaking. ka la  ha  19:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

editprotected

- Now corrected. ka la  ha  18:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * done. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I can't believe this has actually been added to the infobox. First of all, it's hardly vital information and, IMO, has no place in the infobox. Second, it is very difficult to find information on players' contracts, and even then the info is often unreliable. Most of the time, it's purely speculative. I move that this parameter be removed from the infobox. – PeeJay 08:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I concur, I can't see what useful purpose it serves, and as you note it's extremely hard to reliably source. I had a quick scout round and couldn't find a reliable source that gave this information for more than a couple of players at my club....... ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The only time I've ever seen information about a player's contract is when they've signed for a new club and it is reported that "Player X has signed a Y-year contract with Club Z", or the player's contract is about to expire, in which case the information will only be valid for a few more months. Either way, if you could remove the parameter from the infobox, Chris, that'd be swell :D – PeeJay 10:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree it's an unnecessary addition. - Dudesleeper / Talk  19:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Any chance we can get someone to remove it? – PeeJay 16:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Please? Someone? – PeeJay 20:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It's gone ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Apps vs Caps
I would use the term 'caps' over 'apps' in this infobox - I would have thought that caps would be the more appropriate term, or is this just a colloquial term? I'm assuming that apps is short for appearances, but I didn't find it very clear in the infobox. What do others thing? Ollie 22:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The short answer is that players don't win caps for club appearances. I would leave it as it is. Sʟυмgυм • т • c  23:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Rightalign apps(goals)?
As it is now, more and more templates are edited to add 0s, in order to right-align the number of apps and goals.

Example:
 * 7 (10)
 * 115 (5)

Instead of adding so many 0s, it would be easier to right-align the apps(goals) parameter in the infobox, perhaps with a small margin between the tallies and the right edge of the template. It would render the 0s before the apps tally needless, though 0s might still be needed for to align the goal tallies. It is a small change, but would spare some typing in new templates and stylizing of existing templates in the long run. Especially goalkeepers who score few if any goals, would benefit. Poulsen 09:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Long term, I think this would be better.  Sʟυмgυм • т • c  20:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Professional clubs
I was wondering what the consensus would be to change this parameter to Clubs or Club teams, since very few people (myself included) seem to obey it and include non-league/non-professional teams. I don't really see why only professional clubs should be listed anyway. - Dudesleeper · Talk 19:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Another solution could be Senior clubs. ka  la  ha  19:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * [edit conflict with Kalaha] Agree to change, perhaps to Senior clubs? – Elisson • T • C • 19:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That works for me. - Dudesleeper · Talk 21:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree - professional clubs can be a bit restrictive. Senior clubs is a good idea. Daemonic Kangaroo 21:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't have a problem with that, but isn't it possible that it would create a non-notability issue, regarding players that have not played professionally? --ChaChaFut 23:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * As long as there's a recognised professional club in the list, I don't see this being a problem. - Dudesleeper · Talk 23:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Flags
I've seen a few boxes contain flagicons next to a player's clubs. I think this looks awful and detracts from the infobox, but before removing them, is there anywhere where this was previously discussed? Mk3severo 17:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know if it has been discussed elsewhere, but I agree with your opinion on this matter. Sʟυмgυм • т • c  18:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Personally, I really like them. They give a quick, easy, visual indication of a country, saving users a few seconds. I'd rather oppose their removal, myself. — OwenBlacker 10:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You like them, but did you ever see how it looks in IE6? It looks really awful. I agree with Mk3severo and I think that these flags shouldn't be used until they will be fully compatible with all browsers.--Repli cant 11:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * This has been discussed a bazillion times before in a bazillion different places. No-one seems to be able to come to any agreement, but the flags are slowly proliferating.
 * Personally, I don't like them that much. With regard to footballers, I think that they are OK next to player, as they can represent a particular country at that sport. I definately don't like then next to mangament staff though. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 17:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Adding flags next to clubs also often throws the box out of sync, so that's another reason for not adding them WikiGull 15:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Badges would look better in my opinion. Bababoum 20:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Not compatible with WP:FU. – Elisson • T • C • 20:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Yesterday I saw an article containing state flags, which is a step closer to insanity (mine, at least). Do we think we'll reach a consensus here regarding football infoboxes so that we can finally offer a point of reference for our removal of the blighters? - Dudesleeper · Talk 09:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Here is an example from a football-related article, I'm sure there are loads more.... ChrisTheDude 10:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Place of birth and flag icons
Is there any consensus on whter a flag is needed in the "place of birth" section, and if so, is it meant to be before or after the location? For example, just having a random look through the Man Utd (and ex) players, and Dong has it after, Beckham has it before and Vidic doesn't have it at all.

Some kind of consensus needed? Darkson - BANG! 16:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Position of managers in infobox
I've noticed that some people put a former player's position to be Manager (former Midfielder), for example, in the infoboxes. My view is that position refers to the position they played in, and if they are currently a manager of a club, then that can go in the club number bit of the box. Am tempted to just change a couple that I've spotted just now, but thought this might be worth wider discussion and a consensus on how to deal with this. WikiGull 21:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree completely, and this is something I always try to fix. I think there needs to be a new, optional, 'job' field. Without that, it should go in the club field, with a br/ if necessary. ArtVandelay13 21:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Could this not be resolved by changing the field title in the infobox from Position to Playing position?
 * The above discussion has been copied from Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football Daemonic Kangaroo 12:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I have take the liberty of amending the title for the "position" field to read "Playing position" to make it more obvious what should go there. Daemonic Kangaroo 12:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)