Template talk:Infobox football biography/Archive 6

Protection?
Not one to be generally paranoid, but now that we have this up and running and consensus of a sort to use for new articles, shouldn't we consider protection of some description for all the same reasons the original template is protected?-- Club Oranje Talk 09:44, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd prefer to wait until it's actually vandalised (and even then, only to semiprotection). Preemptive protection is no sweat to admins, but if everything were preemptively protected nobody would ever start working in templatespace. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Documentation and blank templates?
Can someone do some proper documentation for this infobox with some blank templates for copying into new articles, like those at Template:Infobox Football biography? – PeeJay 18:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * ✅ (at last). Did quite a bit of cleanup / correction work too. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Cheers buddy. Now I can actually start using this thang! :-D – PeeJay 17:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Column headers
Is there any way that we could make it so that, if the "manageryears" and "managerclubs" parameters are present without the "years", "clubs" and "caps(goals)" parameters, the "Years" and "Clubs" column headers still show? See Mark Goldberg for what I'm talking about. – PeeJay 21:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Howzat. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems to have worked for Mark Goldberg and Ron Noades, but now the other instances of the infobox are broken. I'll revert. – PeeJay 08:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Insufficient diligence in foolproofing the new conditionals. Should be fixed in the sandbox. If that works for you then feel free to sync it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Problem with manageryears and managerclubs
After updating Luiz Felipe Scolari to use this template the infobox only shows up to the 15th club managed (Jubilo Iwata). Is there an error with the limit of clubs managed or something? (Sorry if my English is bad, it is not my native language) A18919 23:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by A18919 (talk • contribs)
 * I've expanded the template to go up to 30 managerial positions. Should be enough for any manager, tbh. – PeeJay 23:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Medals section
This doesn't seem to appear anymore. Was this just a mistake? I don't see any discussion. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 14:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * infobox3cols only currently supports 100 rows, and the addition of extra manager fields bumped it to data101 - I've worked around this for now by limiting us to 29 managers. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Caption
It should be possible to include a caption under the image. Especially for former players it can be of importance when the image was taken. Rettetast (talk) 13:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems that one has already been included. – PeeJay 13:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * (ec) try caption... chandler ··· 13:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Yup. I added it in February but never bothered documenting it (something I'm often guilty of). Added to doc now. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't this be brought to a vote to show when it is appropriate for a caption to be placed and when it isn't.Stephen Hayes (talk) 09:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * We don't decide things by voting: we do it by debating and then assessing the results of consensus based on the debate. However, the current discussion on WT:FOOTY which you started is the ideal place to have such a discussion. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Cool, just seemed like it had slipped by unannounced, silver lining is that it got me to join up, rather than just reading and remembering.Stephen Hayes (talk) 09:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

National team
I had to expand the national team sections for Iker Casillas. Would it not make sense to list the actual number of spaces allocated in the documentation? Given the Casillas and Scholari problems it's clear that those "..." things were just arbitrarily written. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits) 16:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, and would at the least semi-protection and move protection be a good idea at this stage? Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits) 16:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I would very much rather not protect unless there's actually vandalism; it's a gigantic pain in the ass to tinker with what is still an experimental template if editprotected has to be requested. The only disruptive edit recently was by an editor who is a) already an admin and b) an expert template editor, so this wouldn't have helped. I've bumped the max rows in infobox3cols to 106 to handle the increase in national teams you added. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Cheers for that. The experimental stage seems to be going well anyway. I suggest protection more as a defence to prospective vandalism rather than any prevalence of vandalism itself. I can see that full on red lock protection would be a pain at this stage. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits) 17:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Question regarding club appearances and league matches
Hi,

Would it be possible to have the "Senior club appearances and goals counted for the domestic league only" message disabled for a specific player? In Brazil (and I bet in other countries, too) we usually count all goals a player has scored for a given team in every *official* match, regardless of whether it was for the local state league, one of the many national domestic leagues (there's no such thing as "the" domestic league in Brazil), or international leagues (Copa Libertadores, for instance).

What is happening right now is that .br users are simply ignoring that message -- and providing bad information to our readers. I'd say the vast majority of the pages concerning Brazilian football players are wrong in that regard.

Thank you for your attention.

Pedrovsky (talk) 16:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. I suppose it would be possible to add a  parameter which could be used to display a different message, but I think this needs more discussion. Could you raise it at WT:FOOTY? It applies just as much to Infobox Football biography I think. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Done.
 * Pedrovsky (talk) 17:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Conversion?
Any update on if and when the old infoboxes are to be converted to this format? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It's probably doable now, but I haven't gone through the process of requesting bot work before, so if I'm going to be left to do it myself then it might take a while. Anyone else is welcome to pick up the baton if they think they can get it done faster. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

minor fixes needed
There is a minor issue whereby if no club information is provided (as is often the case with non-professional players that have played internationally in many smaller countries) the footnote2 appearances (goals) explanation does not show (random example Melissa Wileman) (and lacked a line-break), and there also appeared to be an unneeded line-break after footnote 3. The final parameter below (clarification : "below" is the name of the parameter, it is not shown below here!) as shown in this sandbox edit fixes these issues, as demonstrated in the test cases. -- Club Oranje T 09:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. --- RockMFR 16:13, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Infobox width
The width of this infobox seems highly dependant on the fields filled in, which makes it quite inconsistent when using in conjunction with other infoboxes, for dual sport people, or people notable for multiple things. The changes made to auto align the caps / goals make in marginally narrower as a base case, and if no club information is available it is even narrower - refer the test cases -- Club Oranje T 09:10, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Would it be possible to make the "Apps" and "Goals" column headers a colspan? That ought to reduce the width a little. – PeeJay 09:47, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * At the cost of making the table format nonsensical. I'm not seeing that there's a real problem here - we could hard-code a maximum width, but this template is so widely deployed that there are all sorts of edge cases which we have to consider. If there are genuine bugs in the way the columns work then we can fix them, but I don't see that a variance in width is that big a deal. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I was thinking more of a minimum rather than a maximum (I just assumed long clubs would wrap like the image caption, but apparently not), so I have to ask just to be sure...did you scroll down to the third series of boxes at the bottom of the page? I'm not overly concerned, but there is quite a difference. More so if he was born in Nadi in May and played for Fiji! -- Club Oranje T 11:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * 22em is the infobox default minimum width, which is why we're using it. I'm loathe to override the default styling unless it's shown to have a demonstrably positive effect (which is why we've got nowap for the club lines and a slightly reduced line height); in this case, the effect is only really noticeable when multiple infobox templates are placed adjacent to one another, which isn't a common occurrence on articles. If the default infobox width is ever increased (which has been discussed from time to time) we'll pick up on it automatically though. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Caps and goals notes
I think we need an additional field to feature notes regarding appearance and goal count, in cases where they are needed. One example is with Mircea Lucescu (his playing details with Corvinul Huneodara are followed by a note stating it covers only First League statistics due to lack of Second League ones), or also Ronald Hoop (where playing details are followed by an external source for them). --Angelo (talk) 15:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry Angelo, I didn't look at the actual issue on Mircea Lucescu properly first time, which I have done a bit of a clean-up of for now, but I have an idea I'll look at over the weekend when I get time.-- Club Oranje T 02:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * In-line citation methods are probably adequate as has been done, but what may be nice is to change the 1, 2, 3 to *, †, ‡ (symbology per Footnote), to not conflict with in-lines that may be used. -- Club Oranje T 01:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I liked this idea so much I did the sand-box, and it also has the benefit of sorting the vaguely annoying situation as shown in last 3 test cases where there simply is no infobox-footnote-1. I was about to be bold and do the real thing, but it occurred to me that there might be a reason (accessibility reason?) why numbers were used. Couldn't find anything written about it, and not sure how a screen reader handles either option to be honest, so I'll give it a day or so for any feedback before changing the real world.-- Club Oranje T 02:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * So far as I know there is no particular reason for using numbers over letters / symbols. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, updated. -- Club Oranje T 09:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Different sections for international team and club management
I think the templates should have different sections for international team management, and club management, because the two are not mutually exclusive - a manager can manage both an international team and a club team simultaneously. --T.M.M. Dowd (talk) 18:04, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see why this needs a separate section. Just put:


 * manageryears1 = 2009– |managerclubs1 = Club X
 * manageryears2 = 2009– |managerclubs2 = Nation Y
 * This should solve the problem. – PeeJay 21:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed, and clarify in the text that they held both positions concurrently.-- Club Oranje T 10:22, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Indeed. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:39, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

nationalyears8
nationalyears8 is needed for Alberto Aquilani. Matthew_hk  t  c  19:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Need a title on the infobox?
Shouldn't something in the infobox let the reader know what the sport is?LeadSongDog come howl  04:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't that be done by the lead section? – PeeJay 09:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, that's for the article's lead section, not the infobox. Madcynic (talk) 10:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Indeed. Infobox templates are not meant to be substitutions for articles, just handy ways of presenting comparative information. Static explanatory text like that is redundant, and should be avoided. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

national teams listed as clubs
In this article, Puerto Rico is entered into the field nationalteam1 but is listed as "Club". Skomorokh, barbarian  07:40, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This has happened because the template was set to show the years/caps/goals headers in the event they were not already there for clubs, and that player did not have a club career listed. I have changed template to show "Country" instead of club under national team when this happens. Unfortunately this only seems to solve the issue if the page is corrected to point to "Infobox football biography 2" rather than "Infobox Football biography 2" as many were before template was renamed. Not sure if this is just a caching thing as I'm having issues with my system.-- Club Oranje T 10:45, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, seems to be a caching issue, so should show "Country" barring template caching issues-- Club Oranje T 10:49, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Similar issue occurs under manager, as it shows Years and Club if the manager did not have a (noted) playing career. I'm open to suggestions? (example) -- Club Oranje T 10:45, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe "Team" would be a better idea than "Club". – PeeJay 21:49, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd agree with making that change generally. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It would especially work for players who played for FC Barcelona Atlètic or Real Madrid Castilla, as they are playing for one of several teams within a club, not a separate club. – PeeJay 10:07, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Indeed, that was what I was thinking. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Alt text
What's the parameter for adding alt text to an image in this template........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "caption" Sorry, misinterpreted. Try the third parameter.. eg [[Image:image name.svg|200 px|alternate text]] -- Club Oranje T 19:14, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Bot implementation
At some point a bot has to be requested to do the transit from the old to the new infobox. Is there a timeline for this?

Anyway. I have some points that should be take care of at the same time. There are some fields that is not used and should be removed;

Further there are some field that is used incorrectly. When currentclub= Retired, the bot should remove that field and, clubnumber=, =pcupdate= and ntupdate=. The bot could probably also do WP:DASH-fixes within the infobox and remove flagicons that there are consensus on the footyproject to remove. Any other ideas? Rettetast (talk) 11:52, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Just to mention that the documentation says for a person no longer employed by a club, the  contents should be left blank, not the whole parameter removed. Retired players often go on to get managerial or other jobs in football, so the parameter doesn't become redundant once they retire from playing. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:20, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Convention is that the current club parameter refers solely to current players. Removing it is identical to omitting it. In the long run I'd like to see this removed for everybody, because the current club can be identified without it by examination of other fields. I agree with Rettetast that the obsolete fields in question should be removed when we eventually automate the replacement of the old template. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 02:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Documentation says "The club for which the player currently plays, or is employed by. If the player now works in a non-playing role at the club, add this after the club in brackets." (my italics) and that's how it's conventionally used. Not just for current players, and certainly not something which can be extrapolated from other fields. It goes on to say "For retired players not employed by any club or federation, leave blank." Leaving it blank isn't the same as removing it: if removed when a player retires, it needs to be re-added when they take another football job, which is a trivial but irritating exercise for editors who know the parameter exists, but a problem for the inexperienced anons who do much of the football-infobox updating. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:52, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. We inherited that line from the old documentation, where it was seemingly added without discussion last July. To the best of my knowledge this is still uncommonly used on major articles; I seem to remember we had a discussion about not using it for managers, although that was obviously before last July. I'd like to see that discussed further. The more I think about it, the more I come to believe that the parameter simply shouldn't be there at all, as it's inherently recentist and doesn't tell readers anything that the club list doesn't. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the relevant discussion was here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 19, and then someone made that change to the documentation, and no-one objected. Then there was another discussion here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 21, not long afterwards. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, right. In that case it looks like I'm mistaken. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I have another thing I would like the eventual bot to do. Rm italics and bold from fields such as playername and fullname. There is no reason to use that, but I see it a lot. Rettetast (talk) 15:39, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Tim Template
Why is Tim listed as a striker. If you look at the photo it is obvious that he is a goalkeeper. Rettetast (talk) 15:36, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * He's generally considered the Jorge Campos of the made-up footballer world. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 17:03, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * This has annoyed me for a while. Rather than changing the template to suit a goalkeeper, I've swapped in a new image for some variety (and made a couple of adjustments to the example to better highlight some less obvious features of the template). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:32, 9 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.

Is there really no way to implement Appearances and Goals in European competitions in the infobox? Even if not European performances, at least their overall across all competitions for the club. BabyJonas (talk) 22:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * As I wrote on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Players: Have a look at this. --Jaellee (talk) 23:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It does look like it's been discussed a lot before. I can see the validity of the objections. That being said I also think that the European stage is the currently the biggest and most prestigious stage of club football. To ignore it would be to make the articles deficient.


 * If the data field were made an optional extra, we could just ignore/disable it for players without reliable or appropriate stats, and continue to use it for those on whom we have the statistics. Just my two cents. BabyJonas (talk) 00:42, 13 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 09:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Easy enough to adjust; the current value is just for parity with the old template AFAIK. If you've got a suggestion for a new size, just adjust the value "82%" in the sandbox and ping WT:FOOTY to get some eyes on it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Done in the sandbox; see testcases. I've asked the project members to comment here. Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I like the idea of them being a fairly small font to clearly show they are a footnote, though I agree they shouldn't be too small. I have a preference towards the 4th one and then perhaps the 2nd one, although I don't think any look too bad. Eldumpo (talk) 17:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 4th and then 2nd? There are only 2 types, the 3 down the left hand side are the current template, the 6 RH ones are sandbox examples. They are there as comparison, and have different parameters filled out as samples / tests to show what the sandbox ones would like like in different scenarios.-- Club Oranje T 06:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I like the smaller text. Important info such as the infobox displays is what needs to be easily readable. Footnotes are not need to see at a glance info and if the same size as the rest would detract. If one really needs to read it easier, change resolution zoom the screen, adjust settings on ones browser...-- Club Oranje T 06:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Conversion documentation
Has anyone documented the steps for conversion of an article from using Infobox football biography to Infobox football biography 2? Or made a sample conversion whose diff may be temporarily added to the documentation of each template, as a referenced for editors and bot authors? Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * To my knowledge the process hasn't been mapped so far. however, the steps are as follows:
 * needs to be expanded to,   ...   at any line breaks
 * needs to be expanded to,   ...   at any line breaks
 * needs to be expanded to,   ...   at any line breaks
 * needs to be expanded to,   ...   at any line breaks
 * needs to be expanded to  + ,   +   ...   +   at any line breaks, where the second value is taken from inside the parentheses of the original argument (which are then discarded)
 * needs to be expanded to,   ...   at any line breaks
 * needs to be expanded to,   ...   at any line breaks
 * needs to be expanded to  + ,   +   ...   +   at any line breaks, where the second value is taken from inside the parentheses of the original argument (which are then discarded)
 * needs to be expanded to,   ...   at any line breaks
 * needs to be expanded to,   ...   at any line breaks
 * As an additional step,  can be expanded to   and   to   for clarity.
 * footybio2 supports some additional features (such as medal template integration), but I think they fall outwith the remit of a bot. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks - I'll ask for this on WP:BOTREQ in a day or two, unless there are any outstanding issues? Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * There is some additional fixes in the section that should be fixed in the same run. Rettetast (talk) 21:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Native name in |playername= field
I have noticed that a lot of articles includes a native name separated from the transliterated name with a  tag. I suspect that this generates accessibility problems. Would it be a good idea to make a separate parameter for such instances should it be left as it is? Rettetast (talk) 10:55, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It's fine in the  attribute. Where the native name differs significantly from the common name it's rarely used often enough to warrant having it in the infobox title. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:36, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Foot dominance
It might be useful to add an item for foot dominance/preference, i.e. left footed, right footed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.188.240.229 (talk) 19:08, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

No information on the ballgame
I'm surprised that this infobox does not tell the reader that the sportsperson is playing football. This is more important to the reader than say the position within that game. I guess it should be hard-coded in the personal info section as this is a specific footy template. --Tikiwont (talk) 21:46, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This question was asked and replied to at above. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 22:03, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the pointer, disagree with the replies, though. Not sure if there are outside of sports other info boxes that list details of a career but fail to list the field. Omitting it seems to fly in the face of the "purpose of an infobox: to summarize key facts about the article in which it appears." May elaborate later.--Tikiwont (talk) 22:53, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Medal templates
Since the changes to this template to merge with the old one, the medal boxes now appear in the heading (with a blue background), when they should - and used to - appear as data, with a grey background. Can this be fixed at all? ArtVandelay13 (talk) 17:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It was this change, not the changes to this template. Could be fixed by adding "background-color: white" to the table in Template:Infobox medal templates. Frietjes (talk) 20:10, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * So added. Frietjes (talk) 20:17, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I tweaked it a bit to "background-color: #f9f9f9;", which is the color used by infobox, so it should match, and is basically the same as white.  Thanks again. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk)  03:10, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks - it's much better now. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 09:13, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Multiple positions?
The instruction to list "The player's most common position (as a player)" only, seems to be widely ignored. It would also seem to be difficult to verify which is (or was) the player's most common position. Should we change the documentation for this field?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 19:28, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry!!
I have changed the template so that bot conversion is possible this template currently doesn't support multilining but automaticaly put over value which might be more than 1 value, so it was not possible to convert it to new format. Petrb (talk) 21:08, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Apps (Gls)?
Well, in my opinion, the goals part was better with the "", why the change?  –HD   Ask, comment, talk! 22:36, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Reverted - the template shouldn't have to be changed, the bot coding clearly isn't sophisticated enough. GiantSnowman 22:37, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Avoiding automatic claim of being up-to-date
In the claim "correct as of .." it is not justified that the date is automatically updated. Parameter pcupdate seemed to mean time of loading the page, therefore I changed the template to use parameter confirmdate, for the last date the info was checked for being up-to-date.--Patrick (talk) 06:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This change has screwed up every use of this infobox so has been reverted. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 06:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * A claim that a page is up-to-date, even at a future date producing that date explicitly, is potentially a false claim that is worse than just having info that is outdated. In template calls the new parameter can be used to specify a date at which the info is/was up-to-date.--Patrick (talk) 13:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Patrick, I'm not quite understanding your issue with the template as it currently stands. The current pcupdate= or clubupdate= parameters are changed by an editor every time that editor updates the infobox stats. This then produces the text "correct as of..." the date added in the template. The "correct as of..." does not change every time a page is loaded, or indeed every time a page is edited. This system seems to have worked well for quite a while now, the clubupdate parameter is more clear than pcupdate which is why you can use both.
 * Your edit broke all existing templates that used that parameter, as I'm sure you can understand that is less than desirable which is why it was reverted. What precisely do you want changed, do you want another parameter in the template? Do you want to amend the wording of existing parameters? Woody (talk) 20:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I was referring to pages like, which at the time of this writing says "correct as of 23:09, May 3, 2011" (i.e., at this moment), due to the use of pcupdate = June 29, 2024 . I understand now that such template calls are not typical, and they need to be corrected, not the template. I am sorry for the confusion; this was caused by the fact that documentation of this parameter is missing.--Patrick (talk) 21:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen that before but yes, that shouldn't be used. I've also done a bit of cleanup on that infobox, you shouldn't just remove the pcupdate, you should try and add the date that the data is accurate for (or check and update the data yourself). Regards, Woody (talk) 21:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * includes all pages with this kind of error (not many). And I fixed the documentation of the template.--Patrick (talk) 21:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Manager of 34 clubs
It looks like we need to extend the manager clubs past 30, see Paulo Luiz Campos. This may require changes to the parent infobox3col template. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 01:09, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Now added. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 20:25, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Youth career
Please add:

| label20    =
 * data20     =
 * label21    =
 * data21     =
 * label22    =
 * data22     =

Thanks.--Kolins (talk) 01:53, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Logic for missing "nationalcaps"
Please change

to

and make similar changes for, ... ,

This will allow these fields to be missing and act the same as if they are blank. Thank you. Frietjes (talk) 16:08, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Could I ask you to make the required changes to Template:Infobox football biography/sandbox and then reactivate the request? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, see here. Thank you. Frietjes (talk) 15:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 02:54, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Source
Hello! Could somebody tell me please where can I get the data for caps and goals for clubs and national teams?-- Edgars2007  (Talk/Contributions) 13:37, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * WikiProject_Football/Links would be a starting point. Questions like this should in future be asked at the _will often get a better response_ Football Wikiproject rather than here, this page should be for discussion specifically for questions regarding this template . I have taken the liberty of moving copying this over there for you. -- Club Oranje T 20:39, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Template being discussed
FYI Usage of the dagger (†) in this template is part of a discussion here. Comments are welcome and wanted.-- Kev min  § 05:29, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * What the Manual of Style would like to ban is for people who spend their wiki-time at the Manual of Style to determine. Of far more relevance to people who use this template is how you propose to change the template, and why that would be either a necessity or an improvement. You have used this template as an example of a "problem", but have failed to provide a practical "solution". Without one, the MoS poll carries very little weight here or anywhere else. —WFC— 17:55, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * please comment there on the usage, and also please not I have not used the template as anything, the discussion there was started by a different user.-- Kev min  § 17:59, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Noted. Although I'd prefer to spend my time dealing with the practical implications of any guideline that emerges, as on a theoretical level I have no opinion. If one day there is a conflict between the MoS and this template, a workable resolution (or consensus that one is not necessary) should be sought here, particularly given that this is a fully protected template. —WFC— 19:04, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

totalcaps
Why are "totals are for former/retired players, not current"? Powers T 20:06, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Because editors tend to not update - or update incorrectly - the 'Totals' parameter for current players, leading to inaccurate information. Ergo, it has been traditionally discouraged. GiantSnowman 18:40, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Require all entries to be sourced
It's I assume a common problem that infoboxes contains unsourced data, for example on Aldo de Nigris. I would like to propose that all entries should require a source to be either visible, or have it noted they are unsourced.

Example code:

I understand this would create a lot of work having people actually having to include inline references, but I think the benefits outweighs the downsides. → Aza Toth 00:37, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Referencing what exactly? Everything in the infobox? 'Cos that'd be hard. &mdash; Joseph Fox 15:54, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * An infobox should be a summary of what is already in the main body of the article, and that should be sourced. GiantSnowman 15:57, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * While that is true, I assume it's not often that is the case (how often do you have reference to caps, goals, and apps in the main body?). → Aza Toth 16:01, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Almost everything in all articles should be referenced. That's policy. So...I don't know what you're suggesting - I don't see why that particular infobox needs any special treatment. And as GiantSnowman pointed out, the info in the infobox should be in the article and referenced there (same as the rest of the lede) - in those cases, it doesn't need a ref in the infobox mostly - unless it's something particularly controversial.  Chzz  ► 16:04, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * As an editor who edits almost exclusively in association football biography - and has for nearly six years - the only "controversial" things which are a point of conflict in the infobox are player height, and so normally they are the only things I would suggest referencing directly. GiantSnowman 16:10, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I would agree, but at the same time, things like goals can usually be quite easily traced to Soccerbase, etc. &mdash; Joseph Fox 16:37, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, stats are very easy to source - and normally are, just not directly in the infobox. GiantSnowman 18:11, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I wish it were true that infobox stats are "normally" sourced, or indeed that they are "very easy" to source. I'd agree that players having appeared in the English professional leagues normally have an external link to Soccerbase, Neil Brown, or Michael Joyce's pre-war book, which the reader is expected to guess provides the source for their stats. Aldo de Nigris isn't a good example: the mediotiempo link is an up-to-date reliable source for all his infobox stats, although as a source for content, it shouldn't be in the ext links section. But articles on the many, many players who appeared in English non-league football rarely supply a source for all their stats. Similarly for players appearing outside England.
 * In an ideal world, it would be preferable for player stats to be sourced where they appear in the article, which is, usually, only in the infobox. Some articles have well-sourced career stats tables, but most don't, and very, very few mention details of apps/goals in the prose. In principle, I'd support the proposal. But in practice, nobody's going to do the work. It's too much.
 * What might be helpful, in those many articles that aren't explicitly sourced, would be to encourage editors to list their stats sources in a sub-section of the References section, rather than in External links as they generally do. That way the reader could clearly see where the stats claim to come from, and which stats were unsourced. Something like:
 * ==References==
 * Player statistics
 * Football League matches: Soccerbase
 * Non-league Club 1: Non-League Football Yearbook 2008, p. 1234
 * Non-league Club 2: Club website archive 2009/10
 * Foreign club 1: etc, etc
 * General
 * It'd still be a lot of work, but less than adding refs to the infobox itself. It'd also be something that regular editors would have to buy into, as an exercise in leading a change of attitude towards explicit referencing as much as doing the referencing itself. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:51, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that's an excellent idea. It could also double-up as sourcing for articles which have more detailed stats tables. —WFC— 11:09, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that's an excellent idea. It could also double-up as sourcing for articles which have more detailed stats tables. —WFC— 11:09, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I#m sorry but i fail to understand the difference to status quo. If everything in the article should be sources, and the infobox is part of everything (in the article^^), how is this proposal a change anyhow? Shouldn't the content of the infoboy be sourced right now anyways? Greetings, Jon. Jonathan0007 (talk) 14:03, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Statistics in the infobox should indeed be sourced, but they often aren't, just as other content often isn't. As I understand the original proposal, it aims to make it clear and obvious what the source is for those stats that are sourced, and to make it equally clear and obvious which stats don't have a source. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:47, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Alright then, clarification is always a good thing ;) Greetings, Jon. Jonathan0007 (talk) 14:56, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think Struway2's proposal would be very helpful. Typically, the external links section is a collection of sources for information contained in the infobox, but it is not always clear which link is the source for each entry - a more explicit listing in the references section would be welcome. Jogurney (talk) 17:48, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Fail to see the point of this the the article should be sourced anyway so therefore the infobox info taken from the body of the article should be sourced. This to me is rather unnecessary and would be hard to implement due to the volume of articles we have. Edinburgh   Wanderer  18:09, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * So was sourcing unreferenced articles, but we managed to get through around 10,000 of those. That happened because it was the right thing to do, and this is no different. There's no WP:DEADLINE. —WFC— 08:50, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Its totally different. There is no need for this proposed change. If an article is sourced properly then we don't require this. Edinburgh  Wanderer  18:19, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't see any advantage to modifying the infobox. Material in infoboxes is typically not referenced there, but in the article body. And we already have guidelines encouraging users to add inline citations to reliable sources where they can in biographies. Furthermore, we have a very widely-deployed method of flagging statistics which lack citations: . Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:11, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with this - everything should be referenced in the article body, so including refs in the infobox should not normally be necessary. I think Struway1's solution is a good one, and would make the sourcing of these articles a lot clearer without cluttering up the infobox with references. —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 04:44, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


 * One thing that's important to remember is that WP:CITE only requires us to provide sources for information that's "challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations". You don't need a reference to say that the sky is blue.  Furthermore, Manual of Style/Infoboxes says that the infobox is "to summarize key facts about the article in which it appears" - which should mean that anything that needs referencing is already referenced in the main article.  So requiring references for all of those fields is both a blunt instrument - and overkill.  You'll end up requiring references for things that would never be challenged - or which are already referenced in the main text.  So for that reason, this rule is too agressive.  On the other hand, for the fields that DO require referencing, we already have ample policy/guidelines to demand that this is done.  Why should football biographies be any different or require additional rules?  I think this is a clear case of instruction creep - and as such, we don't need it. SteveBaker (talk) 18:05, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Flags
I have added a note on flags per MOSFLAG and as per Infobox person and per multiple WP:FOOTBALL discussions. Happy to discuss further if anyone objects... -- Club Oranje T 08:13, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Would it be possible to add a function that adds articles that use flag templates in specific fields of the infobox to a cleanup category? Rettetast (talk) 20:35, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

College career??
I tried adding the college caps and college goals on a couple of pages and it's not working. – Michael (talk) 06:24, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It needs hardcoding I believe. GiantSnowman 13:12, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, still needs to be done, ...although the documentation shows it has already been done - hence the confusion for the original poster I suspect.-- Club Oranje T 06:46, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * addendum - It has been coded in the sandbox, just hasn't been implemented in the live template, and no further discussion since Chris's comment on consensus above. I'm happy to do it if consensus can be demonstrated, without prejudice to my own personal view of the necessity of both this and youth career sections. -- Club Oranje T 06:54, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * This appears not to be working. Has there been any progress on this? Hack (talk) 07:46, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Players who have become managers football infobox
In the for players who have become managers football infobox, national teams are listed as current clubs. That is so ridiculous! I think that infobox need a slight change. Change the Club Information to Current information and change the Current club to Currently. That would make more sence! Wonderwizard (talk) 00:13, December 9 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you've not made any sense there. What's the issue? GiantSnowman 17:17, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I assume they mean the incongruity of the infobox displaying e.g. Current club England (manager) under the heading Club information for Fabio Capello. England being a national team and not a club. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:24, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Joining a very old discussion here, would substituting "team" for "club" fix this issue.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:03, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Image
Why it is impossible to use typical  format? Bulwersator (talk) 12:43, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Likely because the templated image inclusion code when being size limited or captioned includes the vertical slash (|) character, which is also the template field separator, which causes issues if not enclosed in the ... mark-up-- Club Oranje T 11:06, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It is usually solved by setting size of image in template code and additional field "image_description" - see Template:Infobox mountain Bulwersator (talk) 11:15, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I can change the code to use bare filenames like all other infoboxes. Check infobox standardisation process in User:WOSlinker/Infoboxes. are there any disagreements on this change? -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅. It's seems I forgot to take care of it earlier. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:52, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Pages using the old style can be found at Category:Infobox football biography image param needs updating. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:54, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Category:Football biography using old style parameters created too. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:58, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

club-update and nationalteam-update parameters
I've changed the wording in the documentation, which used to say "timestamp of the last time the player's infobox statistics were updated", to "timestamp at which the player's infobox statistics are correct", as per the wording at the bottom of the infobox itself that says "correct as of"... The reader doesn't need to know when some Wikipedia editor last fiddled with a player's stats, they need to know when and whether they were up to date. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:24, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

signature parameter
please add signature like this 188.158.227.132 (talk) 14:22, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * seems like this would not be widely used. I moved it to a floating thumbnail image for you. Frietjes (talk) 16:55, 12 June 2013 (UTC)