Template talk:Infobox football biography/Archive 4

Non-league league appearances?
The infobox specifies that only league appearances be included, but this leaves open to conjecture the level of league and competition intended. Some cup competitions (e.g. the Champions League (check out the name) and former versions of the Associate members cup in England and Wales) have a league format for part of the elimination. But maybe more to the point, is the level of competition that is describable as "league": reserve sides play competitions in a league format, as does my nephew's cub scout team: I am confident that these are not intended for inclusion, but hopefully the point is made. There must be a threshold below which competition, even though it is in a league with promotion and relegation, is excluded. In England, there is the particular problem that teams below level 4 in the pyramid are colloquially described as "non-league", although there is a clear structure for many more levels. Players who have played at higher levels have often spent time in their careers in this "non-league league" status: does it make a difference the stage of the career at which this occurs?

So to put some specifics: Lee Hughes played for Kidderminster Harriers at level 5 before his career took off: stats to be included?

Adrian Coote played for Wivenhoe Town (level 8) at the end of his career: stats to be included?

Jon Wallis went on loan from Gillingham to Folkestone (level 7, I think): stats to be included?

A number of players (many of the current Barnet or Shrewsbury squads, for example) will have remained at the same club as that club changed status from non-league to league, or vice versa, and in some cases in both directions. Stats for some seasons, but not others, to be included?

I'm not sure that I have the answers, I'm just raising the question. I think I have read somewhere that only level 4 and above is applied in England, but I cannot find that; is there to be a cut-off point agreed for every other football playing nation? Kevin McE 09:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The Infobox states 'The Domestic League' - this refers to the division that a team is in; its main competition, which is in most cases pretty clear and unambigious - it has even been spelled out as 'The Domestic League' rather than simply 'League' so as to avoid any League/Non-League distinctions. This is done because most statistical sources record only league stats. ArtVandelay13 09:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * To summarise:


 * Professional league football - counted
 * Semi-pro/Amateur league football (including regional leagues) - counted
 * European football - not counted
 * Cup football (including group stages) - not counted
 * Playoffs - not counted
 * Youth/reserve football - not counted
 * Friendlies - not counted
 * ArtVandelay13 09:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd say that if reliable stats are available for the non-league portion of a player's career are available, they should be included, but should of course count league matches only ChrisTheDude 16:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * What if a player during one season plays for a team at level 1 and sometimes for the second team of the club in level 3? Should the matches in level 3 be included oder left out? Or should there be another entry for the second team? --jaellee 18:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * If the second team plays in the league structure, then that should be included, yes (as a separate row), providing the data can be found. ArtVandelay13 18:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I have a related question. What about complicated cases like Andreas Beck? He made appearances for Stuttgart II and Stuttgart between 2005-07. This makes the "years" confusing as you have 2 rows with overlapping years (and it gets even more confusing in cases like Silvio Meißner). ugen64 04:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Apps/goals denotation in managerial infobox
When implementing the "managers who have not been players" template, the "Apps/gls" legend still appears at the foot of the infobox (see José Mourinho, for example). I'm not going to lose sleep over it, but others might. - Dudesleeper · Talk 15:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Where to list the college team?
I've seen the player's college team listed both under youth club and under senior club. Shouldn't there be a college team entry? Until then, which is the preferred location? &mdash; User: (talk) 23:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing you're from the USA? Everywhere else in the world hardly any footballers ever go to college/university so it's never an issue, which is probably why it wasn't included in the template, and why I don't think it needs to be added to the master template.  As to where it should be put if it does apply?  Erm, I'm not sure to be honest, but personally I'd lean towards "senior clubs"...... ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I was updating U.S. Women's National team members. Most/all were on college teams prior to or when they were on the National team and competing in the World Cup and/or Olympics.  &mdash; User: (talk) 01:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It shouldn't be difficult for an admin to add a section with the code:


 * as exhibited (if you are quick) here. I would see no objection to including such a section where the college years are/were a meaningful part of the player's professional development (this might well only be Us/Canadian players, and the occasional other (eg Andrew Sambrook) who spent time there).  The problem is the college often refers to an institute of secondary level education (11-16 years of age) and I think that there would be agreement that we do not want every player's school team listed.  Kevin McE (talk) 19:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * In America, as far as I know, "college" is only ever used to refer to an institute of post-18 education, but if there was a field in the template specifically labelled "college", I could see well-meaning but misguided UK users editing articles to include the fact that Wayne Wayneson went to North Footown Sixth-form College or whatever...... ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * How about "University"? Though not post-secondary institutions are universities, would this prevent the confusion? &mdash; User: (talk) 03:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This would still not be really appropriate for the few UK (for example) based players who attended university before their professional careers, and although there would be less of them, it would still be open to the problem CtD has outlined. However, it would be a lesser problem, simply because so few European players attended university (or can spell the word).  It was you who queried the lack of a college field: would you consider the terms interchangeable?  Kevin McE (talk) 20:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

make playername optional
editprotected

This can be derived from the article name, if the article is located at the player's name (which it almost always is). Simply change:

to

Chris Cunningham (talk) 11:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

add "conceded goals"
would it be possible to add conceded goals, or conceded goals per match, or saves to have some reasonable number for goalkeepers as well? --ThurnerRupert (talk) 12:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Conceded goals might be possible, although it's not exactly a commonly reported stat, however I've never seen any sort of course that gives info on "saves"..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * And goals conceded are always just the goalkeeper's fault, of course. - Dudesleeper Talk  16:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * There again, players credited with the goals often haven't had to do much to gain that stat, so that is scarcely the point. Goals conceded is not a frequently collated or quoted stat, so there is little or no merit in adding it just so that goalies do not have (usually) a blank. Kevin McE (talk) 18:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This section is goalkeeper-centric, though, so I thought I'd make the point. - Dudesleeper Talk  19:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Karl Dickman's change to the box
Can somebody undo this please? It looks really, really messy what he has done to the name at the top. Its taken the top of the box off. - ForeverWhiteRose (talk) 20:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

This change wasn't discussed or the relevant project notified prior to implementation, and it should have been. And at this template talk it was suggested that infoboxes were moving away from using caption, not towards. Please could this be reverted, and if the editor still wants to do it, could he please discuss the matter first? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 20:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Apparently captions aren't well supported in many browsers, which I was not aware of at the time I made the edit. A shame, as this is exactly what they're meant for.  Oh well.  I reverted it.  Karl Dickman talk 03:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Struway2 (talk) 06:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

definition of "Youth clubs"
I'm wondering if we should tighten up the definition of what should be included under youthclubs. If a player progresses through the youth team of a professional club, then of course that should be included. But there are many other types of team that a player may have represented prior to turning pro, e.g.
 * School team
 * Local/regional youth team
 * Amateur team (usually for 19th century or early 20th century players)
 * Sunday-league team
 * Non-league (Saturday) team

I'd appreciate any thoughts on which of these should be included - I don't have any strong opinions on this myself. --Jameboy (talk) 17:36, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I was thinking the same thing recently. In North America, the college system is very prominent, are college teams considered youth?  They are basically U23 teams, so the same is true of Premier Development League (PDL).  Some of the PDL clubs are tied to USL First Division or MLS clubs. --Coppercanuck (talk) 19:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that this is restricted to teams with some form of recognised (by the national FA) training authority, rather than jumpers for goalposts outfits, or representative/schools' teams. There is a discussion above about having a "college" section, but no action was agreed or taken.  Kevin McE (talk) 21:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Kevin McE. Stick to recognised teams. Anything else can always go in the text. Peanut4 (talk) 23:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I'm working on improving Cyrille Regis at the moment, and was thinking of this article in particular when I posed the question. I wasn't sure what, if anything, to put as his youth team, as he progressed from school/area football to Sunday football to semi-pro to pro. Maybe I should just leave his youth team blank? --Jameboy (talk) 00:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Nickname?
Isn't it needed to add nicknames to this template? A lot of famous players and trainers have nicknames, often(-ly?) given by the press. I would say: add! Dr. F.C. Turner - [ USERPAGE | USERTALK ] - 18:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * See the earlier section handily titled Nicknames. - Dudesleeper / Talk  18:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * . Woody (talk) 19:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

International Debut
Could we add information for a players FULL international debut and show the age in a pair of parentheses based on the Death date and age template?

For example:


 * internationalfootballdebut =
 * Well, a player's first cap will invariably be mentioned in the body text. Is their specific age at the time of their first cap notable enough to go in the infobox?  I think not, personally -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with ChrisTheDude. The infobox should only be for key information. I don't think this would be classed as key information. Peanut4 (talk) 21:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Why only league appearances?
I've been a Wikipedian for a while now, and although I know that we only record league appearances in a player's infobox, I just wondered "Why do we do it?" Recording only league appearances just leads to content disputes, usually involving new editors who don't know about this policy, and also goes against the common convention used by other sites that record players' stats. I propose that we record all senior competitive appearances made by a player in order to avoid this confusion. – PeeJay 19:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, but add it must be official matches and not friendlies and like. ka  la  ha  19:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I made that provision with the term "senior competitive appearances". – PeeJay 20:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Because from a historical point of view cup appearances are hard to find, they're very rarely recorded. The main statistical resources in the UK, namely Rothmans and the Football League Records books only list league appearances, and it's also commonplace on the continent. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 20:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I can understand why the Football League Records book would only list league appearances, but I'm surprised that Rothmans does the same. What does the PFA Who's Who book record? – PeeJay 20:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It records everything (NB: Rothmans records cup stats, but only for that season; the career summaries in the player lists are league games only). ArtVandelay13 (talk) 21:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Only having league appearances definitely paints alot of Liverpool players in a different light. Being a Liverpool fan I find it amazing the difference in games and goals that the wikipedia rules discriminates against, and shows how much of a cup kings team we have been over the recent past. Londo  06  21:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, so let me get this straight. We only record league appearances in the infobox because, for older players, it is more difficult to find records of their cup appearances, and to avoid being recentist, we should record the same statistics for all players. Am I on the right track? – PeeJay 21:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Pretty much, yeah - consistency is the key, whether that's from country to country or year to year. I suppose there's a case for including all competitions if you can find it for a player's entire career, but it seems like this system works better. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 21:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd say another factor is that there are gazillions more cups competed for now, so modern players have an unfair advantage in bumping up their appearance totals. Just showing league apps allows for a fairer comparison between modern players and old-timers...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That can't be a serious argument here, surely it is best to have the fullest information available, regardless of whether teams play more cup games. The English Premiership used to have 42 games, are you saying we should only count 38 of those games a season in the infobox. Use the fullest information available.Come on the Mothers (talk) 07:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually you are right, that was a silly point to raise. However my other points elsewhere in this debate about the inaccessibility of info and the chaos that would ensue trying to ensure that over 20,000 infoboxes were individually amended still stand..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * As outlined above, the point is that the information isn't generally available. Football stats for Football League/Premier League clubs are now all over the internet. This wasn't the case until very recently. An example: Birmingham City F.C., then a second-tier club, entered the Anglo-Italian Cup in 1995; in trying to compile an accurate player list for that club's players, I've had to go back to match programmes to find who appeared in that competition because it isn't available anywhere else. This is as recently as 13 years ago, for a relatively big club in a country with huge football coverage. By all means have a table in players' articles showing appearances in whatever competitions they played in; no-one's saying don't use available information. But in many other countries, and in England for anything longer ago than a very few years, the data just isn't there. And if it isn't there, we shouldn't be making its inclusion in the infobox a standard. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Soccerbase, for example, doesn't list any matches played in the Football League Trophy prior to 1997, even though the competition has been running since 1983. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, if we were to decide to change to "all competitions", you can bet your life savings that less than 10% of all the infoboxes would get changed, and we'd then end up with a chaotic situation whereby you had no idea whether a particular player's box showed "all comps" or just "league only", thereby rendering all infobox stats inherently unreliable...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If this was included, what cup games do we include? For English clubs you immediately have FA Cup, League Cup, Football League Trophy, Charity Shield, play-off games, Intertoto Cup, Champions League, UEFA Cup and then for non-league players a whole host of cups. A lot of these appearances are being slowly included in tables at the bottom of player articles. I think it's easier to only include league stats in the infobox, but I'm not averse to either outcome. Peanut4 (talk) 20:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Nickname part 3 - propose to reinclude
I only just noticed this parameter was removed. Based on the above discussion, this looks to have only happened because it attracts vandalism, and done on the views of four or five editors, with some doing it reluctantly on that basis. I personally don't think that potential for or even actual vandalism is a good enough reason for its removal, given there are very famous and sourceable nicknames, and as a rule we don't let vandals dictate the content or structure of the pedia. I included it because it specifically linked to List of football (soccer) players by nickname as a useful comparison to other players, just mentioning a nickname it in the main text does not do that, so I want to propose re-adding it. I will also list this at WP:FOOTY to get more input. MickMacNee (talk) 19:45, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I oppose, it's not a sport where many players have nicknames, if they do they're usually their player names anyway, such as Ronaldinho and Nani. It's not a sport like boxing where they have 'official' nicknames as such, which is what infoboxes are for - official stats and info. --Jimbo[online] 22:20, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * By my investigations, throught the related Afd nomination of Articles for deletion/List of sportspeople by nickname (3rd nomination), you've actually proposed deletion of the only list of boxer's names on the pedia. MickMacNee (talk) 02:13, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I was totally sat on the fence with this one, until that response. I suspect most footballers have a nickname or two, some by their teammates, some from fans, some from journalists. But mostly only the same as you or me have a nickname. It's not particularly relevant in football and as such would only be a minor addition to the infobox which could clutter it up. Peanut4 (talk) 22:25, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose The infobox is supposed to be an at-a-glance summary of the basic details of the player's biography. A nickname isn't an basic detail. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 22:36, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

That list of nicknames is crap anyway, there's no references what so ever, it's a possible AfD case. If it was to exsist, it should be along the lines of List of hooligan firms where each one is reliably referenced or not included. --Jimbo[online] 22:29, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I would suggest the list is a case for AfD too. What are the inclusion criteria for any player? Strictly every player with a wikipedia entry, or perhaps even those without could have their nickname added. And Alan Smith's nickname of Smudge backs up my point above. Scores of people with the surname Smith are nicknamed Smudge, so what makes it relevant to Smith as a footballer? Peanut4 (talk) 22:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * AfD for said list can be found here. --Jimbo[online] 22:52, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Nicknames are not an encyclopaedic piece of information. In fact, very few players have them anyway. Off the top of my head, I could only remember "Sparky" Hughes and "Gazza". The "nickname" parameter should remain removed. – PeeJay 22:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose As said above: the infobox should be for real info, not terrace-speak. Kevin McE (talk) 00:51, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not encyclopedic, as in "does not belong in a serious encyclopedia". Totally subjective, players can have many nicknames, applied by their family, childhood friends, teammates or media. -- Alexf42 02:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I am quite certain that such worthy texts as Brittanica have player's nicknames in their biographic entries in whatever their equivalent of an infobox is (one of them paper page thingies?). And who ever heard of wikipedia including information simply based on what a friend/relative of the subject said was true? There's a world of difference between what the world's press uses as a player nickname and what his mates/mum/terrace fans do. Had the press not so voraciously picked up on Victoria's revelation that she calls him GoldenBalls, do you honestly think that someone claiming on a talk page that they are david beckham's old drinking buddy and he heard Victoria calls him goldenballs, therefore can he add it to the infobox, that this would be allowed? MickMacNee (talk) 02:42, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above - subjective, multi nicknames, etc. Where players have playing name per Ronaldinho, Socrates, Pele, it appears at top of infobox anyway. If they have famously known nick (and not too many do outside their local fan club) as per Gazza Gascoigne or Knobby Styles include it in the text.-- Club Oranje Talk 00:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Olympic medals
Can any smart person work out a way how to include olympic medals as part of the infobox? Template:Infobox runner does this - (see Usain Bolt) for how it looks. Cheers. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 10:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Interwiki
Can you add fr:Modèle:Infobox Footballeur interwiki? --Dereckson (talk) 16:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I've added editprotected to draw admin attention. Korg (talk) 18:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ You can do this yourself, interwikis are put on the /doc page. —Ms2ger (talk) 19:25, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tip! Korg (talk) 20:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

preferred foot
Should this one be added to the box? A choice between left/right/either perhaps? Chelseabob (talk) 22:51, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No. too trivial for infobox. Also speculative, unless you are going to ask each player which he prefers! I played with a guy once I would have swore he favoured his left, until one day I saw him hit it with his right. He said he preferred his right, it was just that playing on the left he often used that as that was best to use at the time.-- Club Oranje Talk 01:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Change to management section
I'd like to propose a change to the management section, so that all coaching jobs can be included, other than just a management career. See the example on the right. I think it's worthwhile to include a person's entire football career, and it's neater than the current solution.

It only requires a very small change to the management section, which can be copied from here:

{{#if: {{{manageryears| - }}}{{{managerclubs| - }}} | ! style="background: #b0c4de;" colspan="3" {{!}} Coaching career {{!}}- {{!}} {{{manageryears}}} {{!}} {{{managerclubs}}} {{!}} {{{managerjobs}}} {{!}}-

Thoughts? ArtVandelay13 (talk) 19:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Seems like a good idea, yeah. I'd be happy with this. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:01, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't say I'm a fan of the idea. However, I would suggest listing this at WT:FOOTY to get a more complete debate. Peanut4 (talk) 22:07, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Why not a fan? Flowerparty {{sup|☀}} 00:05, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it could make the infobox extremely long, would be full of shortened forms, which would strictly need explaining or a key, and look ugly and unwieldly. I think limiting it to managerial roles is far simpler and more appropriate. All other roles can be explained in the text. We have to limit the infobox somewhere. Peanut4 (talk) 00:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose - roles like 'Coach' and 'Physio' are never that prominent on official club websites, and are often collective sections aside the manager. I'd keep it as it is, and remove assistant manager, coach positions etc. whenever I find them in the current style infoboxes. This sort of info can be covered in the main body (with references). Heightwatcher (talk) 15:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the idea works quite well - it gets across a decent amount of information, fills the career section time-wise and I would suggest that there aren't that many coaches for whom including it would vastly increase their infobox size. El Pollo Diablo (Talk) 15:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)