Template talk:Infobox football biography/Archive 5

Conversion to infobox
Hey folks,

I've spent some time today updating the infobox infrastructure to allow for it to support the current layout of this template. The example is up at our new sandbox for your perusal. There should be no change in fucntionality.

I've also put up an alternative version which more closely matches the style of all the other footy boxes, such as our stadium, club and competition boxes. This is my preferred version, but I understand that the two are really different issues and I wouldn't want the code update to be thrown out because of a little bit of styling. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * What's different about the alternative version? You just took away the blue stripes? Flowerparty☀ 22:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * And moved the title to a caption field, which is where WikiTable titles normally go. This means the template matches stylistically with infobox football club, infobox stadium, infobox football association, infobox football tournament et cetera. If this is accepted then it's trivial to adjust infobox football official now as well. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:29, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Seems like a good change to me. Out of interest, would it be possible to merge Infobox football biography and Infobox football official? Although there are few examples of it happening, there have been a few players and coaches who have become referees in the past, and also a few referees who have become coaches (one Herbert Bamlett, for instance). – PeeJay 20:29, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I much prefer the older version with the blue lines. It's far easier to read in my opinion. Are there any other changes, because I can't spot any at first glance. Peanut4 (talk) 20:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I have to say that I am in agreement - the old (current) one is easier to read as it is clearly divided up by the coloured bars. пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  21:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Odd that this hasn't generated more than a couple of negative comments on any of the other infoboxen. But anyway, no, there are no other presentational changes - the vast majority of the work was to the underlying codebase, to make it much easier to maintain in future. If there are no objections, the top version of the sandboxed code should be dropped in to the current infobox. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure the same can apply to other football infoboxes. Apart from Infobox football official, which has the same principal as this one, none of the rest have distinct sections. The blue bars neatly distinguish between personal, club and international sections. All the other infoboxes don't need the bars to divide between sections. I might be totally wrong and I don't want to try stop removing the blue bar, just my personal opinion is it eases the readability and use of this (and the referee's) infobox. Peanut4 (talk) 20:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Meh. I dislike the inconsistency and really don't think that the blue bars significantly aid in readability, but I'm happy to hold off on that one. The more important change is the code overhaul. Anyway, if there are no objections I'll request an edit to move to the new codebase while retaining the styling for now. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Is it just me or has this had an effect on the width of the boxes? I'm looking at Infobox football official and some of the pages it's used on such as Pierluigi Collina and George Courtney. Nanonic (talk) 03:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I've fixed this now. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:27, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I've tried this out on a newly created article - Gerry Kelly (footballer). A few problems have emerged:
 * 1) The header for the infobox is the article title complete with suffix (footballer). How can it be made to display the commonly known name, e.g. "Gerry Kelly"?
 * 2) The youth clubs appear to be centred across the whole infobox, rather than left-justified on the second column.

I did find it easier to enter the stats for the clubs - when there are more than a few, the older version of the infobox did give you eyestrain checking that appearances, dates and clubs all matched. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 06:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * You missed the parameter. Adding this has fixed the infobox title.
 * The youth clubs issue is a side-effect of not including years. As years should always be provided, I've added in question marks.
 * Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:58, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Following on from #2, I see the side-effect of not supplying years is the same in the managers section as in youthclubs, but if the years are omitted from a row in the players section, that row doesn't display at all. Where years are unknown, many editors prefer to leave the area blank on aesthetic grounds. Would using a &amp;nbsp; in the years column rather than questionmarks where years are unknown be acceptable from an accessibility point of view? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:09, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Frankly, if a player's tenure at a club is unknown then we should be doing everything possible to get a more reliable source for it. I've gone ahead and made the template spit out a question mark for the year if any of youth, club or international years are omitted. We shouldn't allow infoboxen to contain information which isn't reliably sourced, and that would seem to include being able to tie down when a player was at a given club. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Theoretically, yes. Practically, it's not always possible. I use Michael Joyce's Football League Players' Records as probably the reliable source for pre-WW2 appearances in the Football League. He also lists players' non-Football-League clubs, in order of tenure, without dates. Where these are minor clubs without published history, the dates aren't reliably sourceable, though the player's having been with that club is. It'd be misleading to omit such clubs from the infobox just because the accurate dates are lost in the mists of time.


 * However, would using a &amp;nbsp; rather than questionmarks where years are unknown be OK from an accessibility point of view? I don't know how a screen reader would interpret it. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * If the data truly isn't known, then putting "unknown" lets the reader know that (this is fine style-wise). And no, a non-breaking space isn't fine. From WP:ACCESS: "It can cause problems if the first column in a row has non-text comment such as a photograph (unless the photograph contains an alt attribute) or a color without explanatory text." Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Struway2 (talk) 17:45, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Accessibility issue
Per Wikipedia talk:Accessibility this template violates the guidelines at WikiProject Usability/Infobox accessibility. I strongly suggest the youthyears/youthclubs, years/clubs/caps, nationalyears/nationalteam/nationalcaps, and manageryears/managerclubs parameters be exploded into sets of parameters e.g. youthyears1/youthclubs1, youthyears2/youthclubs2, ... and the resultant HTML changed so rows really are rows so the table is accessible to someone using a screen reader. Perhaps the best way to do this would be to create a new version of the template with a new name, convert to the new parameters, and when all done redirect the existing template to the new one. Since there are nearly 40,000 references to this template, I'd suggest asking for help at Bot requests to do the conversion. -- Rick Block (talk) 15:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I've used my sandbox code to create Infobox football biography 2, which resolves this. I've posted to the usability talk page too. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * This should be fixed here, not in a fork. —Ms2ger (talk) 11:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Indeed, but it needed thorough testing in the field to ensure that it was palatable. I think we've had enough of that by now, so this weekend I'll inform the project that I'm looking to roll it out and if that's acceptable we'll look to get the bot request done. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

New version as trialled on Terry Butcher
Having seen this in a real context, I've got a couple of comments. First, the separate caption looks very odd; as if it's there by mistake, not really part of the infobox at all. Second, can something be done about the line heights in the clubs sections? There's too much white space between each club name line, which pushes the infobox a lot further down into the article. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The separate caption is used like that on every other football infobox style (with the exception of the officials, which I'd like to switch as well) and it's used widely across the project - it takes a little getting used to, but if it helps to make this infobox look like the others I'd rather it were kept. As for the line height, I've now hacked the template to reduce line-height on rows where there are two data items. Again I would question if this were truly necessary, as opposed to a minor aesthetic quibble, but the work is done to allow us a simple choice to do so or not now. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:16, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * On first look, it looks good to me. Peanut4 (talk) 18:43, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, the managers section is implemented differently from the old version. Previously, the club managed and anything written after it, such as "assistant coach", used both 2nd and 3rd columns of the infobox (see old version of Butcher). Now, it uses only the 2nd column, which widens the ib significantly. AFAIK, we're not supposed to use the managers section for anything other than clubs managed/head-coached, but people do, and a change to allow the inclusion of any coaching position was proposed above. Not saying the new layout is wrong – but try it with Wolverhampton Wanderers (assistant caretaker/manager) – just that it is different from the old. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:58, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Individual teams can be given two rows if desired using the current code - give me an example article and I'll show how it's done. This results in some lines having a greater height than others due to the previous compromise, though. As you can see, striving for pixel-perfect recreation of the old layout isn't going to work, and it should be questioned whether this is actually necessary or whether it's simply being requested out of familiarity. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I don't really understand what you're saying. What I meant was, from where I sit, in the infobox there are effectively three columns. In the players section all three are used: the first one contains years, the second contains teams and the third contains appearances. In the old version managers section, the first contained years and the second and third combined contained team-and-position-held. In the new managers section, only the first two appear to be used: the first column contains years, the second contains team-and-position-held, and the third is blank. I'm not well up in how templates work, so don't see the relevance of line height; and am not that bothered by familiarity considerations. I just don't see the point, in terms of overall infobox width, of not allowing the team-and-position-held to spread into the right-hand column. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The basic issue is that you can't have both a reduced line height for the manager section and allow it to stretch into the third row. Whether this is an acceptable trade-off depends on how fussed one is about the line height. This is the price paid for fixing the accessibility issue. Have a look at the current version, which allows managers into the third row. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:44, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I do prefer the narrower version, because the reduced overall width impinges less on the body of the article. Though I don't presume to speak for anyone other than myself :-) Seems odd to a non-technical person that line-height affects/is affected by column usage. Have you noticed the comments made in the Conversion to infobox section above? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It's a limitation of the base template. It could theoretically be fixed by allowing per-row overriding, as opposed to per-row-type overriding, but as I've said I don't believe this would be accepted by the template maintainers. The whole point of infoboxes is to provide a consistent set of at-a-glance information, and allowing everything to be overridden at will tends to work against that. I've now answered the comments above, cheers. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Personally I don't like it, and much prefer the older one; if something ain't broke, don't fix it! GiantSnowman 11:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It is "broke". See for details. I wish people would deign to say why they "don't like it", as this isn't a vote. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:44, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it's OK, personally, other than the issue raised above whereby the caption at the top replicates the article name, including disambiguators such as (footballer born 1972), which looks silly........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * If you can point to an instance where this happens with Infobox football biography 2 but not Infobox football biography I'll fix it. I don't believe any changes I've made could have caused this - the template picks up on, if specified, and falls back to the page title if not. It's worked like this for a long time. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

-- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I've used version 2 on Johnny Warsap, but the apps/goals number appears to have gone all wonky, slipping below the line that the years and club name are on - is there a reason for this (I'm viewing it in IE 6 if that's any help).....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It's the ref that's doing that. Maybe the rows need a valign=center? Or the ref to go somewhere else? ArtVandelay13 (talk) 08:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't verify this (at least not using IE7's "compatibility mode", which should behave like IE 6). A screenshot? Does this happen with the old box? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * See screenshot HERE. This was using Firefox 3.0.4. And it doesn't happen with the old box, at least on that browser. hope this helps, cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * A-ha, I getcha. This should now be fixed (thanks DOM Inspector!) - let me know if there's anything else. Cheers. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:50, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 'Fraid it still looks the same in IE6 - see below:


 * I'll have a look into this tonight. It should be possible to fix this by trial and error into what CSS IE6 supports. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, as suspected, IE sucks. Can you try adding the following to your monobook.css:  to see if it fixes it? I've proposed adding this to the site's skin. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to confirm it is now OK in FF3. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 22:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Very good work on this so far. Do you want to shrink the font to be more similar to the current version?  The current version uses "font-size: 85%;".  Is anyone working on a bot to update to the new parameter syntax?  -- Rick Block (talk) 00:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * There doesn't seem to be a "Total" parameter for total appearances and goals (see, e.g. George Burley). -- Rick Block (talk) 01:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I've asked at Bot requests if anyone's interested in writing a bot to do the conversion. -- Rick Block (talk) 01:37, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The font size is as it is because it's the most legible size that displays identically in IE and other browsers - a lot of trial and error went into picking it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I would suggest 88% for consistent display (that is also the infobox' default). As for the "fix" described above, I declined the edit request on Common.css. Are you aware there is a hard-coded "line-height: 9pt;" in the template exactly where the bug appears? — Edokter  •  Talk  • 19:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I commented on your talk page, but just to confirm here - the issue is with the replacement infobox, infobox football biography 2, not this one. We've just having the conversation here because it's simpler. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Old vs new, side by side
Here's a side by side of the new and old versions using data from George Burley. -- Rick Block (talk) 05:07, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I much prefer the older version (I didn't know we were pushed for space in articles, so I don't know why it needs to be squished together), but if the new one is to be implemented, I'd like to see Total moved into the club column. - Dudesleeper / Talk  09:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The whole impetus for the change is because of accessibility concerns with the old template - these include a problem where users with screen readers have difficulty reading tables if the first column in a row is blank. That was the reason for the move of the "total" label. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd also prefer to see the word "Total" in the club column. Also, is there any chance to remove the gaps between the different rows more akin to the current version? Peanut4 (talk) 11:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * As explained, "total" has to be in the first column or screen readers get confused. The padding issue depends on users' browsers and font sizes - on my current display the difference in the clubs section is only pixels or so. Screenshots are appreciated. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:25, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Presumably what Peanut means is per this screenshot, where the clubs played for lines are separated by a very similar depth of white space in old and new, but the clubs managed lines are much farther apart in the new version. (Using FF3, 1024x768 screen size). cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:15, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I've given in and added a custom global line height override. I didn't want to go this far, but if it's the only way to push past this particular issue then so be it. Overall height should be practically the same in most cases now. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah the height is pretty much the same now. It wasn't so much the height of the box, but there were visibly large gaps in the managerial positions before. Good work. Peanut4 (talk) 14:15, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

So what is the main reason why the template is being changed? Hubschrauber729 (talk) 20:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * See . cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Quick explanation - screen readers used by blind people read tables cell by cell, not apparent line by apparent line. So the entries that look like lines to you aren't presented that way to a blind person.  For example, from the table above a screen reader would speak "1973–1985 1985–1988 1988–1989 1989–1991 1991–1993 1993 1993–1994 1994 Ipswich Town Sunderland Gillingham ..." making it nearly impossible to tell which club goes with which year range. -- Rick Block (talk) 22:11, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Any idea why the line padding is so different in classic skin? I can probably upload a screenshot, but I suspect if you switch to classic momentarily you'll see what I'm talking about. -- Rick Block (talk) 22:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Screenshot in classic skin. -- Rick Block (talk) 00:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Confirmed, but it's nothing we're doing. You'd be best asking the folks who maintain that skin. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I would make the suggestion to make the "1 Senior club appearances and goals counted for the domestic league only. * Appearances (Goals)" more clearly visible, perhaps by a darker colour and a little larger font. Because I almost never even notice what it says. I would suggest "| belowstyle     = color: gray; font-size: 80%; text-align:center" changed to "| belowstyle      = color: black; font-size: 90%; text-align:center" or something else to make it more visible &mdash; chandler &mdash; 22:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Some infoboxes (I'm thinking of Infobox Former Country, off the top of my head) have a new row for footers and use black text (but smaller, like here) therewithin. That would almost certainly be easier to read. Also, stylistically, the footnote's 1 doesn't need to be superscripted. But this is awesome; how have I not noticed all this was happening? :o) — OwenBlacker (Talk) 00:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Mandatory field
Would it be possible to make all fields optional? I want to use this template for a hockey player who also played a few soccer games but having these mandatory fields make that impossible. Regards. —Krm500 (Communicate!) 04:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Second that request (well, certainly most fields). I have a couple of dual international sports-people (cricket and football) where the cricket one doesn't cover what is required to show football achievement, and full repeat looks manky-- Club Oranje Talk 05:13, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The new version of the template (see above threads) makes all attributes optional. We're just trying to iron out issues with it before requesting widespread deployment. Feel free to use it on articles - it's perfectly usable right now. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:02, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks! Though, if you delete the name fields they show the name of the article in the infobox, but if you keep them but just don't use them you get the result I'm looking for. —Krm500 (Communicate!) 03:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to change infobox section title

 * For information, this proposal stemmed from an initial discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football

I would like to put a proposal forward to change the section title "Youth Clubs" to something more appropriate. The problem with this title is that Scottish players once played Scottish Junior football before moving on to senior clubs. Many, but certainly not all junior players were youths, but the problem is, these clubs are not and never were youth clubs as stated here at their official website. Our own article Scottish Junior Football Association also points this out. Now, some people may think I'm being a little pedantic here, but the fact that we are giving information to the reader which is just plain wrong has brought me here to raise this matter. If we have, for example, a players infobox with his junior team under the heading youth club, the uninformed reader will take our word for it, and take away the wrong information. I've brought this up hoping other editors can come up with a different section title that can take into account the anomaly that was Scottish football. Thanks. Titch Tucker (talk) 23:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * As I see it, the problem (if one exists) is not with the youth teams heading - if a player played for a club at the age of 14 then that club should go under "youth clubs", be it Lochgelly Violet or Real Madrid. Putting a club in that section does not indicate that they only field youth teams.  Surely even the most uninformed person isn't going to look at Jay Bothroyd's article and think "Wow, I never realised Arsenal was only a youth club"?  The problem you have identified is with the conflict between the use of "senior" to mean "adult" and "senior" in the Scottish sense of "affiliated to the SFA" - maybe that section should be renamed "Adult career" or something - surely you wouldn't dispute that a club which a player played for at the age of 25 belongs in that section, even if it is a SJFA club........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the problem lies in the use of the word "clubs" rather than "career"; I would have no problem with a change to "Youth career" and "Senior career". For information, the word "Senior" was changed from "Professional" some time ago, because the word "Professional" was overly restrictive and therefore misused. The documentation of this template, which still defines the "clubs" parameter as a "list of professional clubs that the player has been contracted at", is unhelpful :-)
 * The word "Adult" would be misleading: this discussion confirmed the convention that once a player had made his first-team debut in a pro league, that club and all subsequent ones should go in the "Senior" section even though the player in this instance was only 15.
 * Though clarification of when a player's "Senior" career starts would be nice. With current players who come through pro clubs' youth systems, it's easy: their senior career starts when they turn pro, or when they play for the first team. But there are many, not just Scots, who play first-team football with the grown-ups for "lesser" clubs at a young age; this was particularly so in England in years gone by.
 * Do other readers with a Scottish background have a problem with the use of the word "Senior" as meaning first-team football with the grown-ups, as opposed to its technical usage in Scottish football? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think players who started out at non-league clubs necessarily cloud the issue - most of those clubs have youth teams too, so if they played for the youth section of the club then it goes under "youth", and if they played for the "firsts" then it goes under "senior", irrespective of what age the player was.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Having Arsenal and Real Madrid under the section youth clubs is fine, that is the correct thing to do, as both teams have youth clubs. The problem lies with clubs being included in the section who are not youth clubs. I agree with Struway in that Youth career and Senior career would be more accurate and wouldn't misinform the reader as to the status of those clubs. Titch Tucker (talk) 10:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Would there be any agreement to changing the section leads to "Youth career" and "Senior career" as suggested by Struway? Titch Tucker (talk) 01:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I woulnd't have a problem with that -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I think we need "professional" and not "senior". As noted by Titch Tucker, the issue is that the antonym of "senior" is "junior", but a junior club in Scotland is not necessarily a youth club (and indeed is really no different from most clubs in leagues below the fifth level of the English pyramid). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Didn't we already change "professional" to "senior" specifically to avoid a different problem, namely that many players' boxes included stints with non-professional non-league clubs........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * ...D'oh. Good point. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * If there is an agreement for the change to "Youth career" and "Senior career" could some kind admin make the change to the Template please. Thanks. Titch Tucker (talk) 17:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Is there an agreement to this proposal? Titch Tucker (talk) 01:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm happy with that - it will allow for those players who start off as teenagers playing at a minor club alongside adults before moving up to a professional club. By the way, I have extended the template to allow for an extra 10 clubs. This was to allow for John Burridge who played for 33 clubs in his career - the template only allowed up to 29. If I've screwed anything up, please let me know.   Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 06:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

As there seems to be a consensus for the change, I've taken the bull by the horns and done it. If anyone objects, please revert the edit. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 08:43, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Fashionably late I know, but I agree to proposal... but could you also do the original template (i.e. this one!) with the same change. Thanks.-- Club Oranje Talk 09:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

editprotected
 * Yes check.svg Done Changed to "youth career" and "senior career". If I was supposed to add an extra 10 clubs to this one, too, put the editprotected template back.--Aervanath (talk) 11:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Question about kit number
Can someone give me arguments for mentioning a player's kit number, and why not? The number field has been removed from the Hebrew template, and I want to get it back with good reasoning. The brief explanation for the removal was that it is easy to vandalize an article this way (as it is a small piece of information), and that anyway articles don't mention the numbers inside them. YemeniteCamel (talk) 16:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well if the fact of it being in the infobox were to be used to justify inclusion in the text, I would be suggesting its deletion from the infobox. I would regard it as harmless, and marginally useful in the infobox: it is probably true that false info in that box for a player that is not in many active editors' watchlists might endure for a while, but that is scarcely major vandalism, and a fairly weak argument for removal of a field. Kevin McE (talk) 17:01, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It identifies and contextualises the player - it's definitely useful information. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 17:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed, although it should be really only be used if the number is given in the article body as well. If it's too trivial for the article body then it's not really appropriate for the infobox. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:13, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that necessarily holds - there's a lot of information that fits well in an infobox but can't be neatly incorporated into prose, and the squad number is one of these things. Also, it could be argued that the squad templates make the number part of the article body. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 10:33, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I know that the guideline isn't followed precisely in most cases, but that's the way it's meant to work anyway. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Add image caption
editprotected

Requesting sync with the sandbox to support a for images, as per infobox football biography 2. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 15:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * editprotected Oops. Change  to   please. Cheers. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅. Thanks, Peter Symonds ( talk ) 11:12, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Date
editprotected Zombie Wikipedian says: "Must delink dates... must delink dates..." — V = I * R  (talk to Ω) 00:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you point out where there are linked dates in this template? I must have missed something obvious. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ (talk)  02:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Disabling. There is no auto-linking dates in the template code. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Oops, I forgot about this. My bad, it turns out that the date was being linked by the user in Gregory du Frenice. — V = I * R  (talk to Ω) 18:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

European performances
It doesn't apply to all players, but to some it's a very important part of their biography and career.

The current system uses a redundant parentheses around the goals field like [League Appearance] [(Goals)]. I propose a format like [League Appearance(League Goals)] [European Appearance(European Goals)]

There will be two fields, just like before, only one field will incorporate both the appearances and the goals. Is this a fair suggestion?

BabyJonas (talk) 14:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Considering that we now have a new football biography infobox (see Template:Infobox football biography 2), I don't see any point in implementing this suggestion here. – PeeJay 17:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Was it announced anywhere? I feel like I missed something totally obvious. Thanks for the heads up though. I'll move the post there. BabyJonas (talk) 22:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Footnote font size
The font size in the footnotes is too small to be readable. Can we fix that? Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:15, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Template:Infobox
There was a very sensible proposal, above to convert this template to use Infobox. What happened to that? Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:18, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Isn't that what Infobox football biography 2 does? We should be using that one now anyway, not this one. – PeeJay 22:13, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That is what the NOTE at the top of the page implies :-) -- Club Oranje T 01:39, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * A note hidden between the ToC and Project boxes. and dated six months ago. When do expect the conversion to happen? Why isn't this template marked as deprecated? Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 09:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The documentation has a banner at the top which serves the same purpose as tdeprecated. If you want to change that to a proper tdeprecated then go ahead. I "expect" that the work will be done when someone does it, just like all other work on this project. The reason it's taken so long is that the mass migration of tens of thousands of articles to a template which isn't fully backwards compatible is hard work. If you want to get the ball rolling on that then try pinging, who (off the top of my head) is good at bot requests for stuff like this. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

editprotected Thank you. (as at the top of this page) needs to go at the top of the template page, inside a "noinclude" (hence ), rather than in the documentation where it will appear below the fold, and be overlooked. I asked about timescales because there appeared to be no ongoing effort to finish this task; no discussion for months and no apparent extant bot request. With discussion spread over more than one talk page, it's possible that there was a reason for that, documented elsewhere. Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   01:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC)