Template talk:Infobox football biography/Archive 3

hCard microformat
Please add hCard microformat mark-up (see WP:UF for background) by adding the following HTML classes:


 * class="infobox" =>
 * class="infobox vcard"


 * colspan="3" style="text-align:center; font-size: large"| =>
 * colspan="3" style="text-align:center; font-size: large" class="fn"|


 * | colspan="2" | =>
 * | colspan="2" |


 * | colspan="2" | =>
 * | colspan="2" |


 * | colspan="2" | =>
 * | colspan="2" |

Where a "fullname" is present, the "fn" class could be applied to that instead of the "playername"; but I don't know how to code that.

I'll then update the documentation accordingly. Thank you. Andy Mabbett 18:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. Oldelpaso 18:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I's also suggest adding template doc, and moving the documentation from this page to the resultant /doc page (see, for example Infobox State Senator). Andy Mabbett 18:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Nicknames
I haven't seen anything in the archives (which doesn't mean it isn't there) regarding the Nickname field of the infobox. Only one (the most well-known) is supposed to be listed, but having just reverted Paul Scholes' article, it reminded me that this rarely happens. I'll be attempting to remedy this wherever I see it, but just wanted to mention it here. - Dudesleeper · Talk 19:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I noticed yesterday that Kieran Richardson had a few, but Edwin van der Sar has just as many. It's ridiculous. Sʟυмgυм • т • c  20:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Personally, I'd like to see the nickname field taken out of the infobox altogether. There are very few players who have single, distinctive nicknames like "Zizou", and the most of the rest are simply not notable. Plus, the initial+uniform number combination like "TH14" and "CR7" aren't nicknames - they're internet shorthands. I just don't see the value of listing nicknames along with truly encyclopedic information like height and club history. Ytny (talk) 21:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Nickname in infobox = bollocks. Infobox = fact.  Leave the nicknames for citations within the text of particular articles.  The Rambling Man 21:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree, nicknames should be placed withing thetext itself. GiantSnowman 22:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Fourth'd. I too would like to see them taken out of the infobox completely. If we get a consensus here, maybe we should do just that. - Dudesleeper · Talk 22:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

People misuse the nickname parameter, I agree. But removing it, naah, I think it deserves its place there. But it should only be used for real nicknames, not the internet shorthands or word plays and similar (van der Star). – Elisson • T • C • 22:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd also back removing it, for a number of reasons. Firstly, it doesn't really stand well the "fact-based" nature of the infobox. Secondly, it's a pain to maintain as IPs and vandals often add numerous ones. Thirdly, most of the nicknames listed are only used by a couple of people, or not at all. Or they're ones used occasionally by the media. Take El Pele Blanco on Rooney's page - I've heard it used about twice by tabloids, but the infobox suggests it's just as much his nickname as Wazza etc. Fourthly, people feel a desire to fill it, even if the player doesn't really have a nickname. I just think we'd be better off without it. If there's a firm consensus here shall we go for it? HornetMike 00:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If there's a firm consensus here shall we go for it? I think we have one, but we should probably wait a few days to give more people a chance to comment on it. - Dudesleeper · Talk 17:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me, if a nickname is truely that and well known then include in text, but not in infobox WikiGull 17:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I must confess to mixed feelings on this subject. If a player was known as Nudger or Fattie or Big Ron and the nickname can be cited to a reliable source, I see no reason why it should not stay in the infobox. Having said that, it seems to give an excuse for a lot of (expletive deleted) users to add anything they like without any evidence, as has happened regularly with Peter Crouch, Alan Shearer, Theo Walcott and many others. On balance therefore, I agree with the consensus above - that the field should be deleted from the infobox which can then be restricted to matters of fact. Nicknames can then be mentioned in the body of the article with appropriate citations. Daemonic Kangaroo 19:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I would vote for removing it. Any noteworthy nicknames can go in the main body, if sourced. Archibald99  19:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I've now removed the nickname field per the above consensus. Oldelpaso 18:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Will the 'nickname' attribute be automatically removed from infoboxes in articles (e.g. by a bot)? Or is this a manual task? If a nickname is especially notable and can be referenced, I guess it should be moved into the article proper. --Jameboy 21:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It'll just sit there not displaying, like all the articles that have got "shirt supplier" and "shirt sponsor" listed..... ChrisTheDude 21:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Timing of transfers
It is not uncommon for transfers to be announced some time before their coming into effect, particularly in the time frame between the end of the season and the expiration date of a contract. IMHO, infoboxes should only record what is true at the time of writing/reading, and not a few weeks thereafter (Wiki is not a crystal ball). I suspect that the easy part will be confirming agreement of that here: the tricky part will be preventing over-enthusiastic editors applying changes prematurely. Kevin McE 11:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree. For example, Steve Sidwell is currently contracted to Reading, and is until the end of this month.  However, it would be ludicrous to suggest he is still a Reading player when the club themselves have announced he's left, and he's passed a medical at Chelsea.  There are no games left to play, the players are not training as it is during their holiday period, and when they do come back to train, it will be with their new clubs.  As such, it's pendantry to the point that it's misleading if we don't update the articles.  robwingfield «T•C» 11:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, transfers are usually set for July 1, but if both clubs involved have no games to play, and then the deal is done, then it's much more useful and informative to list players with their new clubs. ArtVandelay13 12:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't agree. If a player is still contracted to one club, it makes more sense to list him as at that club, with a note in the prose to the effect that a move has been agreed from the future point. - fchd 12:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I thought that as long as the transfer has been agreed and the selling club does not have any further fixtures (the player has effectively left) then the current club info was changed. For example, Gareth Bale, Steve Sidwell and Luke Varney have all had their current clubs changed as they will no longer play for (or train with) their "current" clubs again. I don't believe this is a case of WP:Crystal Ball, which states: "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." A contract has been signed; it is certain to take place and is notable. Dave101  →talk  13:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Varney and Bale are not relevant examples, as they have moved during the time of their contracts, and therefore do not have to wait until July 1 to move. In the cases of Hargreaves and Sidwell, and many others, even if a contract has been signed, it is a contract to be a player of that club from 1st July.  It is false to say that they are players of those clubs on 1st June.  Kevin McE 19:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No, the transfer window opens on 1 July, no player can move before that date. Bale and Varney are no different to Hargreaves. All these transfers will be finalised when the transfer window opens on 1 July. Dave101 →talk  19:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Then why this soccernet transfer section shows that Varney transferred on May 21 and not listed on pre-agreed deals for July 1 like Sidwell. There must be a reason for this. Martin tamb 06:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Deals are not official til the period July 1 to August 31 and January 1 to January 31. Therefore Steve Sidwell is still a Reading player, Owen Hargreaves is still a Bayern player, Luca Toni is still at Fiorentina, Marcel Jansen is still at Borussia Moenchengladbach, Scott Parker is still at Newcastle United and Mike Hanke is still at VfL Wolfsburg. It is technically incorrect to say they are at their new clubs. Kingjeff 16:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Note that there some special circumstances where transfer can happen outside the transfer window as those transfer windows only apply for so called winter leagues (August-May). Player may come to clubs from summer leagues (Feb-Nov) such as Russian League, MLS, Argentina, etc. Such cases happen when Alexey Smertin left Charlton Athletic F.C. on March, Abel Xavier move to LA Galaxy on May, Juan Pablo Angel in April, Juan Roman Riquelme loaned in February. Well it's not really relevant, but it's worth to know this. ^_^ Martin tamb 06:45, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

If you take a look here at Michael Ballack, you would see one of many examples of where transfers were not recognized before July 1 even though agreements were already made. Kingjeff 17:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It may be technically incorrect, but to all intents and purposes it is correct, and isn't that more useful and informative, particularly given that they're not going to play, or even train with their (official) current clubs again? ArtVandelay13 17:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

No. Giving false information is not good. Kingjeff 17:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not false; false is far too strong a word; false is reporting transfer speculation as a done deal. What use is it to a WP reader that Sidwell is still a officially Reading player, when he will never return to the club in any capacity, and will definitely join Chelsea before his next involvement in club football? ArtVandelay13 18:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The main issue I am concerned with is the amount of work which will present itself on July 1. A referenced statement in the lead announcing the move would be very useful. It would mean that it's obvious that the page is out of date and would show editors that a move is expected.  Sʟυмgυм • т • c  18:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Not to mention the ridiculous amount of reverting that would have to be done over the next month - especially over something so trivial. Dave101  →talk  18:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not a really big thing, this issue will be gone in 30 days, don't waste your time arguing for an issue that will be gone completely after 30 days. Anyway I have some suggestion that you guys might wanna consider, what if under current club we listed the future transfer, I once see this in some players page but I couldnt't recall which one. I made the example below. (Note: This is similar with how Football Manager shows future transfer on the players page). ^-^ Martin tamb 18:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

However, if, for example, Owen Hargreaves suffered a career ending injury between now and 1st July (god forbid!), then we will not, and never would have been, a manchester united player, because he would currently not be under contract to Manchester United.

By all means mention in the main article that player X is joining club Y on date Z, but the info box should only present past and present information. Darkson - BANG! 16:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, add in the fact that the date at the bottom of the info box (if updated at all) will at best read todays date, not a date a month or so down the line. Therefore the info box should only show information upto and including today. Darkson - BANG! 16:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Weight parameter request
Editprotected I believe that a "weight" parameter should be added to this template, following the same format as the "height" parameter. Obviously, it would be an optional parameter, but if people believe that height is a necessary parameter to include in the template, then weight should be too. - PeeJay 10:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Individuals' weights fluctuate a little more than their height, so it probably shouldn't be included. - Dudesleeper · Talk 11:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Dudesleeper, even though he made a misleading typo ;) Weight fluctuates, height doesn't. Just look at the photos of Ronaldinho from this season and last that were published by the world press after Barcelona got knocked out of this season's Champions League. aLii 16:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Even though that is factually correct, there is usually only 1 weight number per season. Even at this, it probably wouldn't change on a seasonal basis. Kingjeff 16:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Unless a player is out injured for weeks or months at a time and can't train. - Dudesleeper · Talk 16:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm refering to their weight number on their club's official website. Kingjeff 16:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * But that doesn't mean it's accurate for future use, for the reason I've stated above. - Dudesleeper · Talk 16:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

But height and weight go together. Kingjeff 16:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * This is what I'm trying to say. Although weight can fluctuate more than height does, clubs tend to publish just the one weight for their players each season. And if I'm quite honest, any player whose weight fluctuates that much is either extremely out of shape or still developing. PeeJay 17:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Which are both legitimate possibilities. - Dudesleeper · Talk 17:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Well according to himself and his club, Ronaldinho hadn't put on weight, and wasn't overweight. Each a blatent lie. Weight information is also not as easy to obtain as height info, and has less relevence to a player's performance and abilities than the height measurement. Weight can be muscle or fat or clothes or what food the player ate that day. Height can only be height. aLii 17:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * That is one of the daftest arguments I've heard in a while. Weight measurements are usually taken during medical examinations (usually performed at the start of each season), and I've never heard of anyone taking a medical examination with clothes on or on a full stomach. As for it being "muscle or fat", yes, that's what weight is: body mass. PeeJay 17:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * We all have opinions about what in the above is daft, but it's best not to state them. You've asked for the parameter to be added; now it's up to an admin to decide. - Dudesleeper · Talk 17:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Can you back that up? Kingjeff 17:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

It's fairly clear there is no consensus for the change, so I've declined the request for now. Feel free to re-add if discussion reaches a consensus for change. -  auburn pilot  talk  19:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Documentation
editprotected Hi, I want to request moving the documentation at the top of this page to a doc subpage, the have this transcluded to the infobox (with noinclude obviously), so I can easily archive this long talk page, thanks -- Andersmusician  VOTE  05:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Yes check.svg|20px]] Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 15:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * nevermind thanks -- Andersmusician  VOTE  22:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * wait now it looks terrible, I wonder if you could please add a between the end of the infobox and the template:Template doc, so we don't have both at the samwe height here. -- Andersmusician   VOTE  22:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Yes check.svg|20px]] Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 01:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Parameters
The parameters at Template:Infobox_football_biography need amending so that they tie up to the actual template now in use; e.g.
 * As the has been removed from the template, it should be removed from the list of parameters.
 * At the list of parameters says "The shirt number of the player at his most recent club". Should this not say something like: "The shirt number of the player at his current club. Leave blank if retired."
 * Should there not be an explanation of &  ?

Daemonic Kangaroo 05:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Season years
There is an inconsistency between the manner in which a player's years at a club are shown in the template and the way they are shown in the player Manual of Style. In the latter the years are shown in full e.g. 1985-1987 whereas in the template they are abbreviated to 1985-87.

The explanation given at Template:Infobox_football_biography is rather trite; "In order to keep the infobox from ballooning laterally, it is wise to keep date formats as compact as possible" especially as "2002–present" takes up more space than "2002-2003". What causes the width of infoboxes to balloon is the length of club names, especially if a player has spent time on loan to Wolverhampton Wanderers!

The template also needs amending to use the to tidy up the appearances (goals) column.

Incidentally, the infobox at Template:Infobox football biography/doc no longer displays correctly on a small (laptop) screen (although fine on a larger monitor), as the data in the club section are folding. Has some restriction been put on the width of the infobox? At present it looks a mess. Daemonic Kangaroo 05:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I use eight digits if the player's career has spanned two centuries, six if it hasn't. I never write 'present'. ArtVandelay13 10:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Unfotunately, there is a lack of consistency, which I am trying to address. ArtVandelay13 has created articles for Lee Boylan and Carl Regan for example. In the infobox for the former the years are shown as "2006-2007" whilst in the latter they are shown as "2005-06". I know it's only my opinion, but I prefer the former style and think the Regan infobox looks messy - furthermore I can see no need for shorthand when column space is not a problem. Daemonic Kangaroo 12:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Regan's article does look untidy, because there is internal inconsistency, I'd admit that. My approach has since changed to that which I detailed above; I haven't managed to change all previously created infoboxes yet. For players whose careers have been entirely in one century, I'd continue to use 1993-97 etc for all columns (compare Boylan with Johnny Newman (footballer)), as I think it reads more naturally and column space is an issue, and it's not something to be wasted. ArtVandelay13 13:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Height template in template
While I'm on a roll, can I also bring up the old chestnut of the use of the template. This was discussed above.

Again there is no consistency between the player MoS and the template. The explanation at Template:Infobox_football_biography/doc makes no reference to the template, whereas the examples use the template. As more and more infoboxes use the template, should this not be adopted as the standard and the documentation and the player MoS should be brought in line. Daemonic Kangaroo 05:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I am for this. slυмgυм [ ←→ ] 21:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I am against this. robwingfield «T•C» 22:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Place for Image attribution
Any way we could include a field for image attribution below the picture? Some people release images under Creative Commons Attribution, where they ask to have the name of the copyright holder attributed in the immediate vicinity of the image. See for instance the copyright note on. The attribution should be right below the image, I think, in a smallish font. I can't find a way to accomplish this with the current infobox. Shanes 22:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Like this? slυмgυм [ ←→ ] 21:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that works. Thanks! Shanes 23:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Nah, looks rubbish. Isn't there a WP policy stating that stuff should only appear in the image's own page? - Dudesleeper · Talk 00:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Is there? I don't know of any such guideline or policy myself, but then again no person can know them all... But this is actually one case (the only, I think) where I feel a tiny bit of added uglyness might be worth it. We desperately lack (good) free pictures of most football players, and such pictures should really be quite easy to get if more people were motivated to go to matches with a decent camera and take and release photos of players. Having their name on Wikipedia in small under the picture they took might motivate a few more, and is a rather small prize to pay for getting more and better pictures. Just my opinion, and if theres a policy stating otherwise, then never mind. Shanes 00:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe it isn't as frowned-upon as it once was, but I'd still prefer that the caveat be followed. From Captions:


 * Tips for describing pictures
 * Here are some details people might want to know about the picture (all are linkable):


 * What is noteworthy about the subject of the picture? If there is an article on the subject of the picture, link to it.
 * For photographs:
 * Where was it taken?
 * When was it taken?
 * Who took it? (Generally, this is only included in the caption if the photographer is notable.)
 * Why was it taken?


 * - Dudesleeper · Talk 09:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Certainly I attributed the action photo on Leek Town F.C. by placing a small credit underneath and someone removed it stating that credits belong only on the image page ChrisTheDude 14:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

da:Skabelon:Fodboldspiller
Would it be possible to add da:Skabelon:Fodboldspiller? --Fr0ztbyt3 22:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

✅ Done SeveroTC 22:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Can we change "current club" to "current team"?
Because it doesn't make sense for international managers, e.g. Stuart Pearce Borisblue 02:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Weight?
Can we please add weight to this?

|weight =

That sort of coding? ¡иąтнąи! | Talk | [mailto:nathan@simpedia.co.uk Email]| 12:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * See the discussion above. The consensus seems to be that as weight varies, it will not be accurate: club's might release a weight measurement once a year for players (or upon their signing, but never update it) and so it is only ever going to be a snapshot of the situation on a particular day, not a reliable fact.  Figures released by different clubs might be measured under different conditions, and so may not be directly comparable.  Kevin McE 17:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Brazilian league apps
What are we counting as "league appearances" for Brazilian players? Brazilian teams play in 2 different leagues, the national league - Campeonato Brasileiro (which is divided into Serie A, Serie B, Serie C, etc. just like Italy) and the state leagues, such as the Campeonato Pernambucano. Essentially the year is divided in half (kind of like the Argentinian system with Apertura/Clausura - except it's 2 completely different leagues). Now, it is much easier to find caps/goals for the Campeonato Brasileirao (for example L'Equipe only lists those stats - ) but it gives a misleading view of a player's influence in the team. For example, Ilan actually played 29 matches for Atletico during his first season, counting the state league appearances, which implies that he was a key player for them. But L'Equipe lists him as making just 12 appearances, which would be more of a backup squad player. ugen64 14:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Very minor tweak needed
There are 3 spaces after "Place of birth  " Buc 11:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * What effect does it have on the functionality of the template? - Dudesleeper · Talk 15:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Requesting edit
Apps (Gls) looks like Apps (GIs), (note: the first was written with a small letter "L" and the latter with a capital "I", which sort of makes my point) and isn't very clear from reading as a result. Can it be changed to simply G, as there is an explanation at the bottom of the box for what the abbreviations stand for anyhow? MSJapan 20:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Wait, it's supposed to be "Gls" (with an L)? I was wondering what "GIs" stood for... "goals in"? ugen64 04:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Gls stands for "goals". Cloudz679 20:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, but my point is that it isn't displaying properly, and therefore I think it should be changed, especially since the abbreviations are explained in the box. MSJapan 22:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know that now, but it looks like "GIs" (with a capital i) which was confusing me. I agree it could be changed to simply "G". ugen64 00:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)