Template talk:Infobox ice hockey biography/Archive 3

Revisiting the name issue
I really don't understand why this template would be the exception to the rule. I'm hard pressed to find any biography template that doesn't include the name in bold at the top of the template. In particular, I can't find a single instance in Category:Sportsperson infobox templates which doesn't follow that rule. Interestingly enough, the ice hockey template isn't included in that category! In any case, let's end the silliness, add the name at the top in bold, add the template to the relevant category and be done with it. Pichpich (talk) 17:00, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Support standardisation by adding the name. Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. No point rehashing what has been clearly stated above. -DJSasso (talk) 23:38, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't get it. I don't give a rat's ass about this template. The reason I ended up on this talk page is that while reading an article on a hockey player I noticed the absence of the name and figured that this was due to some screw-up in the parameters. Only after I tried to fix it did I realize that this was the way the template was set up. Why did the absence of a name strike me as weird? Because it's always there in any biography infobox. If you think it's a stupid choice, go and argue at Template talk:Infobox person or Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (infoboxes) instead of making a stand here. There's value in consistency throughout the project: this is why we have editors working their ass off in MOS task forces. Why go against Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (infoboxes) anyways? Sorry but the stubbornness of it all makes me dizzy. Pichpich (talk) 00:26, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually the page you point to specifically says you don't have to have a name at the top. Unless someone changed it without discussion recently. edit: oh and sure enough Pigsonthewing changed it today without discussion when consensus was against him last time he tried to make the change. -DJSasso (talk) 00:37, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh great. So this is a pissing contest... Pichpich (talk) 03:12, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a lie; there was plenty of discussion; with no comments since last September, so I implemented what was proposed then. Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:01, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Right, no more comments saying anyone supported the change. It takes a clear consensus to change a guideline. Of which you did not have one. -DJSasso (talk) 22:03, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Another lie; as anyone who has read and understood the debate can see. Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:15, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Really? I don't see a single person agreeing with your change. I see one person offering another option, and I see three people objecting to your change and two asking for more information. Show me what part is a lie please. -DJSasso (talk) 22:16, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Still don't care. The redundant redundancy in redundantly listing the individual's name so many times is redundant, but if Wikipedia chooses to be redundant, that is fine by me. Resolute 23:44, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Also don't really care It is quite pointless to include the name there, when it is displayed everywhere else on the article. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Support, why not?--Львівське (talk) 01:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose mainly for the lazy factor but meh Triggerbit (talk) 02:06, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * There's absolutely no good reason not to fall in line with 99.99% of the rest of the encyclopedia's infoboxes here. Let's just do it and be done with it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:24, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Wowsers, I've been around the hockey player articles for a long time (over 4yrs) & didn't notice ('til today) their names weren't at the top of the infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 23:25, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Support. I think that the ice hockey infobox could use some updating – even though this particular issue isn't a huge issue for me because the name of the individual should also be the title of the page – and standardizing the infobox to be more like those of other biography infoboxes, especially those of other sports, is a good thing. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 16:52, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Support the standard of other infoboxes. &mdash; MrDolomite &bull; Talk 17:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Important note People arguing that the name in bold is not part of the MOS misunderstand the "for people common name is optional" phrase in the guideline. This has nothing to do with having a name in bold or not. It's about an old dispute about using common names vs. full names. See Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(infoboxes)/Archive_3 and WP:COMMONNAME. I think this basically closes the debate. Pichpich (talk) 17:23, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose I think the hockey infobox is the best looking on Wikipedia, and having a name above it simply looks silly to me. The name is already in the lead and in the title. —Krm500 (Communicate!) 17:31, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Really the discussion should be taken to the MOS for infoboxes to remove the name from all infoboxes. As it is completely redunant, and as mentioned above looks rediculous. I would also note that MOS (infoboxes) is a guideline and not a policy, thus local on article (in this case template) consensus can overrule it. -DJSasso (talk) 17:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok so go ahead and make your point there instead of stubbornly trying to win your silly, petty little battle here. Pichpich (talk) 18:54, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not a silly little petty battle. Its a case of making the wiki better. Just because everyone else is doing something that isn't ideal doesn't mean we should. -DJSasso (talk) 21:39, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It's all about not wanting to lose face. You started arguing that it's not in the MOS . Then when I showed that in fact it was, you said that the MOS is wrong and, just in case you can't get people to change the MOS, added screw the MOS. Come on man, you've been here long enough to know that this isn't good practice. Let's put the name in bold for now. By all means, do try to garner a consensus for change on the MOS if you think that your proposal is a plus for the project. Although I don't think that view will prevail, I say this without the slightest hint of sarcasm. Pichpich (talk) 15:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I couldn't care less about "face". Adding the name to the top is ridiculous. -DJSasso (talk) 22:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, that's a convincing argument; especially when you look at all the other infoboxes on Wikipedia. Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:16, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not an argument, the argument is above in the other section and in many of the responders to this discussion. Its extremely redundant, and makes the wiki look amateurish. How many times do we have to beat a reader over the head about what the persons name is? In the title of the article, bolded in the lead, in fancy lettering at the top of the infobox. I'm sorry but there is a point where it becomes ridiculous, if not insulting to the reader. -DJSasso (talk) 23:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, that, too, is a convincing argument; especially when you look at all the other infoboxes on Wikipedia. Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:53, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * People in Germany went along with what Hitler told them to do because that was what everyone was doing. Does that mean what he was doing was right? Just because other infoboxes are doing something doesn't mean its right. -DJSasso (talk) 00:00, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Paging Mike Godwin. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't compare him to hitler which is what Godwin's law is about. I was comparing doing something just because everyone else is, isn't always right. I could have compared it to anything, America's institutionalized racism in the first part of the last century. It was just a well known example. -DJSasso (talk) 11:30, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Nope. Godwin's law states: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.". Which bit of that do you think does not apply? Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:48, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Currently both his and your comments are falling into this part of that article "A 2005 Reason magazine article argued that Godwin's law is often misused to ridicule even valid comparisons." -DJSasso (talk) 11:53, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Clearly, there is no "local consensus" to omit the name here. Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose Omit the name looks better. It is done elsewhere, sure but it is dumb. I think it would be cool if you could turn off the Wikipedia title and just show the infobox one, but in the absence of that, leave out the name. There is enough 'chrome' on a wiki page already... &#x0298; alaney2k  &#x0298; ( talk ) 19:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Again: this shouldn't be debated here but at the relevant MOS page. Pichpich (talk) 20:14, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Support It sounds like the core issue of contention is "how important are style guides"? My opinion is they're very important, particularly for big projects.  Can you imagine dictionaries without a consistent style?  How professional would your weekly news magazine be if each staff artist just did what they thought looked best?--Rsl12 (talk) 21:13, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Update
Looks like everyone's got their cards down here. The arguments for the name are that the MoS prescribes it and every other infobox uses it. The arguments against are that the MoS and every other infobox are wrong. If that's how it stands, then I think we're done here. I'll add name support next week. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Good. Please note the previous change request which included hCard microformat mark-up. If you'd prefer to make a sandbox version, I'll be happy to apply the microformat there. Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:20, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You still don't have consensus for the change... I see half the editors saying oppose (not including the two who say they don't care but think its stupid). The MOS is a guideline not a policy. You need consensus to make the change. -DJSasso (talk) 11:28, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Consensus is a conclusion, not an argument. Head counts have absolutely nothing to do with the process. I'm truly surprised that I'm explaining this to someone who apparently passed an RfA. Anyway, I'll get a sandbox cooked up. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:57, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You are right. However, headcount can show that there is no consensus on something. And someone who was involved in the discussion can clearly not make a call on consensus like you have. Especially when currently their are almost twice as many editors saying they like it as it is than there are that are saying change it. Currently the arguements to change it are a case of "What about X" which is not a valid arguement in deletion and I think is just as invalid in this case. -DJSasso (talk) 12:00, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

If you want me to ping an uninvolved admin to settle this then I can do so. (I like the invocation of WP:WAX where X is "99% of the encyclopedia", by the way.) The sandbox has been updated; once this has been synced then there's a great deal more to get done to bring the codebase kicking and screaming out of 2006. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:05, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I rather like the clean look of the current infobox and see no need to repeat someone's name three times at the top of the article. Powers T 00:10, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It's not a matter of personal aesthetic preference. It's a matter of following the established guidelines for infobox use as applied to every other part of the encyclopedia. WikiProjects are not (or at least are not supposed to be) mini-fiefdoms which are able to simply secede from parts of the MoS that they dislike on the grounds of nothing but personal aesthetics. You've now got the frankly ridiculous situation of a handful of ice hockey fans telling the rest of the encyclopedia that they've decided that it's the other thousand infoboxes which are in the wrong here. There's a bigger problem with control here than the matter of a disagreement over the styling of a template. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Remember if the community insisted on every infobox being the same they would make that part of the MOS policy and not a guideline. As such the community has clearly spoken that not everything has to be uniform. And what we have right now is a few editors crying "I don't like it" and "What about all the others" without having any real argument as to why we should change it. I find it amusing that its editors for the most part that don't even edit these sorts of articles that seem to be the ones trying to force their opinions on others. -DJSasso (talk) 11:25, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * As well, guidelines are descriptive, not proscriptive. That there is a local consensus against a particular application of a particular guideline should be reflected in the guideline, not the other way around.  Powers T 13:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The guidelines describe best practice and give their reasons for doing so. If in every case people could simply choose to opt out of random parts of the MoS without giving any reason other than personal preference then the encyclopedia would be a disjointed mess. Indeed, that's a very good description of where templatespace was several years ago. That's changed across most of the project. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:45, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That tables should have titles is a basic part of Web accessibility; that the MoS prescribes this is not accidental. There is absolutely nothing about this discussion which requires any knowledge of ice hockey whatsoever, and it should be pointed out (once again) that WikiProjects do not own the articles or templates that they happen to be associated with. The only reason this template deviates from the norm is that until now the debate has been inappropriately based on weight of numbers; in the long run it'll end up going to a wider RfC. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * An infobox is rather unique, though, in that its subject is obvious from the box's placement. If we're talking about web accessibility, wouldn't a screen reader reading a typical article with infobox end up repeating the subject's name twice in quick succession?  Powers T 14:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It might be in "quick succession" (not always; infobox templates aren't always at the top of articles whose titles happen to match the subject's most common name), but it's not directly adjacent to it. There's some Wikipedia identifying boilerplate and also a navigation div which is hidden for sighted users. Even if it were the case that the title were superfluous, better to agree that this template should follow the prevailing standard and fix the standard if it's wrong than insist that this template is right and isn't going to change anyway (not that you've done this, but it's the prevailing "consensus" of those blocking the change presently). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This template is precisely what you suggest: a step toward fixing the standard. That's one of two ways we can fix things around here: from the top down, where a broad decision is made and then propagated down to individual instances; and from the bottom up, where the way things are "on the ground" (so to speak) propagate upwards to be reflected in guidelines and policies.  You are clearly an advocate of the former, but the latter works just as well.  Powers T 16:04, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That's an assertion which would need to be backed up by evidence. I don't find it compelling that somehow the MoS grew a guideline for this without anyone ever having questioned it, nor that it was subsequently rolled out everywhere except on ice hockey biographies, where a few brave souls fought for common sense. I can state categorically that this template does not differ from the MoS because of a deliberate move to forge a new standard; it's an old and crufty codebase which has survived in its present form apparently through bloody-mindedness rather than any particular attempt to prove everyone wrong. In fact in its present form it doesn't even emit valid markup by the looks of the two unneeded closing divs at the end. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:38, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If wikiprojects do not own templates, what makes you think you do, Chris? You are attempting to force your viewpoint without consensus support. Resolute 15:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Where did you see Chris claim, to or act as though he did, own it (with, say, comments like "editors for the most part that don't even edit these sorts of templates")? Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:38, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * What Chris is claiming is that the MOS owns the template. To quote from the MOS: "The Manual of Style is a guide applicable to all Wikipedia articles. It presents Wikipedia's house style, and is intended to help editors produce articles whose language, layout, and formatting are consistent, clear, and precise. This helps make the entire encyclopedia easier and more intuitive to use." It's not a policy because it doesn't need to be: it presupposes that editors are sufficiently responsible to use it with a modicum of common sense. Recall that the wiki definition of a guideline is "Editors should attempt to follow guidelines, though they are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." There's no sensible justification for an exception in this case. Pichpich (talk) 15:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The other advantage of the title is that it makes the infobox a visually self-contained unit. The same principle underlies the use of captions under images even when their object is clear by context (this convention is used in most publications). Arguing that the title is redundant completely misses the point: the content of the infobox is also redundant with the article and in most cases with the lede so if we want to avoid redundancy, we might as well do away with the infobox. Pichpich (talk) 15:45, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * But yet, we do not caption images everywhere they appear. For instance, on the Main Page, Today's Featured Article has an uncaptioned image, because the identity of what the picture depicts is explained sufficiently by the surrounding article excerpt.  Likewise, the subject of an infobox is quite obvious in the vast majority of cases.  Powers T 16:04, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It is your opinion that there is no sensible justification for it. A number of people here quite obviously believe its sensible to cut down the amount of redundancy and clutter. The common sense situation would be to not have the title, not just blindly follow what others have done. -DJSasso (talk) 18:24, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It is also the opinion of almost everyone else who has involved themselves in the construction of infobox templates. You're handwaving this away with shouts to WP:WAX, which I previously laughed at but now have to point out as a simply incorrect application of that argument. The argument is not "template X does it, so should we": it is "this has been discussed and standardised elsewhere for the reasons given, and in the absence of a reasonable counterargument should be followed here as well given that the MoS represents community consensus". Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:38, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If you can show me one place where it has actually been discussed I would be surprised. I have seen a small handful of editors going around the wiki changing infoboxes to conform to some random standard with no discussion on those templates. I have yet to see a single place where the topic was actually discussed and it was decided that all infoboxes should have the name at the top. -DJSasso (talk) 23:28, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

RFC
Should this template follow the convention of Manual of Style (infoboxes) requiring that infoboxes contain the subject's name in bold at the top? Pichpich (talk) 23:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No. The MOS does not require the subject's name in bold at the top. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:15, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok. It says
 * "For consistency the following guidelines apply: [...] The top text line should be bold and contain the full (official) name of the article's subject; for people common name is optional." As I noted earlier the "optional" refers to common name vs. full name as in PK Subban vs. Pernell Karl Subban.
 * I guess the word require appears nowhere if that's your beef. Pichpich (talk) 23:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly it specifically doesn't say requires. You want to standardize all infoboxes you need go to the source and make that page a policy and have the wording say requires. -DJSasso (talk) 23:28, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If the RfC question is modified to say " requiring suggesting", my answer will still be the same. It is not policy; it is a guideline.  This infobox is 19em wide, not 300px (25em) as suggested by the MOS, but I see no major debate about that.  So what's the big deal about the name at the top?  — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Right. Manual of Style. Who needs it? You know better. Pichpich (talk) 23:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The manual of style is only a suggestion. It is incorrect to treat it like a policy. It is not a policy for a reason. -DJSasso (talk) 23:38, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the point here is that some of these suggestions don't belong in the MOS... Clearly there is a difference between things like proper capitalization and punctuation versus the appearance of an infobox. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:EXCEPTIONS. Art LaPella (talk) 06:58, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Your point being...? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:11, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The point being that if there is some reason for hockey to be an exception to the rule, I haven't read it here. If your point is that the MOS shouldn't have that rule at all, then I think you should make some effort to change it rather than just ignore it, regardless of the bureaucratic classification of rules into guidelines, policies or whatever. Art LaPella (talk) 17:18, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, understood. I just think it's silly that the "rule" specifies the recommended width of the infobox, which nobody cares about, but also specifies the placement of the name at the top, which has become a big RfC issue, and reeks of IDONTLIKEIT or ILIKEIT depending which side you are on.  Either the "rules" need fixing, or we should all just move on to something that is actually important. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:51, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The reasons for displaying the name have been made clear; and are far from IDONTLIKEIT. They include meeting industry-standard web accessibility guidelines and emitting reusable metadata, as parsed by organisations including Google and Yahoo. No reasons for not including it, other than aesthetic preference, have been expressed. Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:32, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If the rules need fixing, sofixit. Art LaPella (talk) 19:16, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * And as has been pointed out to you in the past. The standards don't require the name to be visible. You keep categorizing our points as aesthetic. But that is not the only reason. Things like redundancy have been mentioned. -DJSasso (talk) 19:23, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If redundancy is the reason, then any infobox is similarly redundant, and the guideline should be changed so that everyone can benefit from our wisdom. The standard shouldn't use words like "require", because someone might get all bureaucratic over a case like Llanfairpwllgwyngyll, where the name length is a good reason for an exception. However, I have found that this issue is also being debated at the correct place, Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (infoboxes). Art LaPella (talk) 20:16, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Nobody has previously claimed - because it would be false to do so - that WCAG guidelines allow for table captions to be hidden. As for supposed redundancy, that's just an aesthetic objection. Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:37, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * What's wrong with aesthetic objections? Powers T 10:55, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There is nothing "wrong" with them, though they are merely subjective. On their own they are insufficient grounds for ignoring MoS or Wikipedia-wide conventions; and they certainly don't outweigh the positive benefits of the proposed change, as outlined elsewhere in this discussion. Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:21, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, it should contain the subjects name in the title line. This is the convention used in most all, if not all, other person related infoboxes.  I see no reason to have an exception here. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk)  23:28, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment on process
In all of the above, no claim is made that this particular infobox should omit the subject's name because of some particular characteristic of ice hockey players; that they are in some way different to other types of people. Were that the case, we could debate the merits of such a claim and reach consensus one way or the other.

The only arguments being made in favour of the status quo are are the aesthetic preferences of a group of editors. It is not healthy for Wikipedia to make decisions - particularly decisions about presentation - on such a basis. We're making an encyclopedia; not a pair of enclycopedias, one about ice hockey and the other about everything else.

If those arguing against the inclusion of the subject's name in the infobox believe that their views have merit, then they should take those views to a centralise discussion, i.e. the MoS talk page, and obtain Wikipedia-wide consensus in support of their view. If they cannot or will not do that, then they should set aside their personal preferences in order that the encyclopedia, and its users, may benefit from greater consistency; just as we all do in other cases. Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:04, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * This would seem to be the correct location for decisions on whether or not to follow a particular convention. Powers T 11:51, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, since the MOS is only a suggestion and not a policy, the appropriate place to discuss this is this talk page so that a local consensus can be formed. It seems you completely misunderstand how the MOS works. -DJSasso (talk) 11:57, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * local consensus? Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:51, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That is the name for consensus achieved for a specific page by people interested in or who edit it. In this case a template. -DJSasso (talk) 13:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:CONLIMITED states that local projects cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. --JD554 (talk) 14:05, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Right, but local pages can decide to follow a guideline or not. We would not be able to override a policy, (ie consensus that all boxes be the same.) which there currently is none. -DJSasso (talk) 14:10, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The exact quote from that page is "For instance, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right." (my emboldening) I have no opinion on whether there should be a name at the top of the infobox or not, but the current policy is that if this project wants to ignore the existing guideline, it needs to get the broader community's input. Therefore, this probably isn't the best place for this discussion. --JD554 (talk) 14:16, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This is an RFC which shows up on the main RFC listing for broader community input. This is how you get the broader community input. -DJSasso (talk) 14:20, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course you're correct. I've also directly asked at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(infoboxes) for more input to this discussion. --JD554 (talk) 14:58, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Interestingly, Djsasso, you're now acknowledging that you need to convince the broader community. This sort of shoots down your argument that the opposition of a handful of people here can blockade the change. You have to show that there is a consensus for not falling in line with the guideline. Not only is this not the case, the fact is that Art LaPella and myself, who had never posted here before, support the change. Pichpich (talk) 20:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I never said only people who edited here could comment. I always supported anyone who came upon the discussion could make their opinions known. However, "insiders" opinions count as well. Its not like you throw out peoples opinions because they happen to edit these types of articles. So far in this discussion the consensus has fallen towards the side of keeping it as it is. -DJSasso (talk) 00:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it hasn't. The only evaluation of the discussion which would suggest that the opposition was the consensus position would be counting heads. Even counting heads, there is far from an overwhelming majority in opposition. You're repeatedly argued that somehow certain voices "count" more than others because they're part of the ice hockey project, but that's irrelevant when the discussion has basically nothing to do with the actual topic of the WikiProject.
 * I have not once said certain voices count more. -DJSasso (talk) 13:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I find it amusing that its editors for the most part that don't even edit these sorts of articles that seem to be the ones trying to force their opinions on others certainly implied that. It should be irrelevant whether or not one edits ice hockey articles. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:56, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually that comment implied that you were saying that. That it didn't matter if there were a large number of editors who had one opinon that we didn't count cause we edited this subject. -DJSasso (talk) 14:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Look. Have you convinced the broader community that this template should go against the generally accepted guideline? The answer is no. You haven't even convinced a consensus of editors within the project. We've lost enough time over this already. Let's move on and change the template so that we can actually go back to writing content. Pichpich (talk) 14:50, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * btw, I'm not exactly an expert on intricate templates but I'm ready to help whoever is building the 2.0 version of the template (within my limited means). Pichpich (talk) 14:52, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I would think it's a bit early to go ahead given the RfC only started two days ago. The bot which closes the RfC gives 30 days for consensus to be reached before closing it, see WP:RFC. Of course if consensus is reached earlier, it can be manually closed. --JD554 (talk) 14:56, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Now that we've gone as far as having a formal RfC opened, might as well go by the book regarding seeing that out. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The necessary code change is already shown above, though it does need checking for compatibility with any subsequent changes. Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:10, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If people are of the opinion that all infoboxes (or even a large category of infoboxes, such as all atheletes) should have the names removed, the MOS talk page would probably be a better place to talk about it. Why use a needle to punch a hole when you could use a hammer? --Rsl12 (talk) 21:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps because people aren't interested in upsetting the larger applecart and are content to let other projects decide whether or not infoboxes should have names. Powers T 12:44, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * As has been made abundantly clear here already; that's not a decision for projects to make. Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:48, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Apologies. I mean perhaps because the people you mention feel that the editors interested in a particular template should be able to decide what that template looks like, and they don't want to interfere with templates in which they are not interested.  Powers T 15:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You may be right. That would be a pity, because an RfC is explicitly a call for outside input where a stalemate has occurred. Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:07, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think the two are in conflict. I'm just saying that people have their own opinions about what this template should look like, but they may not wish to impose that opinion on the editors of other templates.  Powers T 17:04, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * You don't have to be interested in ice hockey (and I was, once upon a time) to be concerned about articles on the subject fitting in with the rest of Wikipedia properly. Anyway, WikiProjects are not clubs, and any decisions made as regards how articles are laid out or presented have to take the wider encyclopedia into consideration. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:30, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Interesting that LtPowers should be concerned about consistency among all hockey players, while being unconcerned about the consistency of Wikipedia as a whole...? Two rhetorical questions:  1) Why do you want the info boxes for all hockey players to look the same?  2)  Why don't those same arguments apply to all athletes?  If you're worried it will be hard to convince the community as a whole that your design is better, maybe it's because it isn't better.  On the other hand, if your design really is better, bringing up the topic on the MOS will make Wikipedia as a whole better. --Rsl12 (talk) 21:25, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Where did I say I was concerned about consistency among all hockey players? Merely by acknowledging the existence of a template used for such consistency?  Powers T 01:52, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I apologize--perhaps I assumed too much. You would rather that the infoboxes be done away with, and each hockey player be formatted however the editors decide? --Rsl12 (talk) 01:58, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm going to stop responding until you stop putting words in my mouth. Powers T 12:47, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * LtPowers--it was a question. I want to understand your stance.  --Rsl12 (talk) 13:15, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Conclusion
Discussion seems to have ceased. Research via WP:BOTREQ incidentally shows that this is the only biographical infobox which has no name display. Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:36, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That's what I suspected but good idea to ask the bot. Case closed. Pichpich (talk) 11:38, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Not really, there is still no-consensus above to change it from the current. Remember you need consensus to change, not consensus to stay the same. No-consensus defaults to stay the same. -DJSasso (talk) 11:45, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No consensus is not an excuse for no change. See Consensus where it is clearly stated that the onus is on those resisting falling in line with a guideline to convince the wider community that this makes sense. Pichpich (talk) 14:41, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I would recommend that this discussion be moved to the MOS talk page, if not by those supporting the omission of names in the title, then by those against the omission. Our spat at talk:wife selling was resolved much quicker once we all agreed that the issue of contention was more generally applicable than just the "wife selling" article. We went to the MOS and got the settlement we were looking for. Moreover, we ended up clarifying the MOS, so others facing the same question will have an easier time of it. I don't think such a move can be considered forum shopping, as the issue is genuinely applicable beyond just the hockey infoboxes. --Rsl12 (talk) 13:52, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You're right, but see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (infoboxes). Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:18, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec) It already was there and Andy was uniformly rejected when he tried to make changes requiring the name. But consensus can change so it can be brought up again I suppose. -DJSasso (talk) 14:20, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Andy's changes were rejected because of the full vs. common name issue but the fact is that in its present state (which is also what it was before the mini edit war involving Andy), the MoS does ask for the name. At the risk of repeating myself, the current language is
 * "The top text line should be bold and contain the full (official) name of the article's subject; for people common name is optional."
 * The optional part is not "for people, include the name if you think it's best". It's "for people include either the full name or the common name, whichever you think is best." With regards to Rsl's suggestion, the fact is that I notified just about every relevant talk page in order to get previously uninvolved editors to chime in. But apparently, this failed to garner anyone's attention. Pichpich (talk) 14:29, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * A few extra questions to those opposing the name.
 * Aren't you at least a wee bit bothered by the fact that this is the only person-infobox without the name?
 * Do you not value consistent usage and formatting throughout the project?
 * The procedural policy on Policies and Guidelines states that Editors should attempt to follow guidelines, though they are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. What is so special about this infobox that makes it a reasonable exception. Pichpich (talk) 14:38, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It depends upon which point you want consistency. I think consistency inside a subject is necessary, but I don't think its necessary across the entire wiki depending on what we are talking about. For example very few infoboxes are the same across subjects. Yes they might have some of the same features. But very few of them look the same because each subject has different needs. I don't see an issue with an infobox of a hockey player looking different from that of a baseketball player from that of a musician. I am not bothered by the fact we are the only one that doesn't have a name because infoboxes for different subjects all look so different that in the scheme of things its a minor difference. -DJSasso (talk) 14:51, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You're really clutching at straws. How are the infobox needs different from a basketball player, especially when it comes to such a trivial detail? Obviously, your point is that no infobox should have the name since your sole issue is redundancy. This is an opinion you should be ready to defend at MOS-infobox and if you can't convince people there, then just step aside and let us make this minor change. Pichpich (talk) 15:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Because the subject matter is different, every subject lists different information in their infoboxes? I wasn't referring to the name. I meant in general. We list different stuff in infoboxes for different subjects. There is very little conformity in infoboxes across subjects. As long as individual subjects have conformity I am happy. You asked if I was concerned about conformity. This was my answer. -DJSasso (talk) 15:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I value consistent usage and formatting throughout the project, but sadly our infoboxes project-wide are actually quite inconsistent. The French Wikipedia does a much better job of standardizing infoboxes, IMO.  Until the English Wikipedia undertakes a similar style-conformance project, I see little reason to focus on that specific aspect of their formatting over the many other inconsistencies that still will be present.  Powers T 18:50, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * But I don't think anyone is asking you to make the modifications. From what I gather, Andy can do that piece of the work. I agree that there's still a lot of work to standardize infoboxes but if you agree that they should be standardized (perhaps more energetically), I don't really understand why you're clinging to this exception. It would be a microscopic step but still a step in the right direction. Also: while uniformity across different wikis is very very low priority, I want to note that name on top of the infoboxes is the standard on most foo.wiki projects. But the hockey infobox usually remains an exception because the code was simply lifted from the en.wiki. Pichpich (talk) 19:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * What I meant was that in the absence of a concerted effort to standardize the look of infoboxes project-wide, the editors of each template should have plenty of leeway to decide what each one looks like. Powers T 22:07, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

All I see in that previous MOS discussion is something about hCard microformat. If I saw that discussion without having all the background knowledge I have from reading what's here, I would have never guessed what the real issue was; namely, that it's redundant to have the name in the article title, the photo caption, and in an infobox header. I might suggest you try again, but do the following:


 * Cite the contentious part of the MOS: "The top text line should be bold and contain the full (official) name of the article's subject; for people common name is optional."
 * State the argument for keeping names in the header (MOS says so) and the argument against (all those names are redundant).
 * Ask if there's sufficient reason for the MOS to recommend a name in the header, given all the redundancy.

--Rsl12 (talk) 14:38, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The name in the infobox cannot be redundant, since it provides something that none of the other instances of the name does, nor can do: an "fn" property for an emitted microformat. Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Feel free to state that as an argument for. I just feel that last time you went to the MOS, you presented your own, somewhat technical and limited argument, you didn't present the debate as a whole for editors to understand what was going on.  That may be why you had a hard time garnering replies.  Heck, I'll post the issue myself right now. --Rsl12 (talk) 15:14, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note however that this was a debate over the hcards. The "include subject name in bold" is a very old component of the MOS-infoboxes. It traces back to October 2007. Pichpich (talk) 15:26, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

added to MOS talk. --Rsl12 (talk) 15:30, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Moving on
Following the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (infoboxes), there is a consensus to have the name in bold on top of the infobox. There's no reason for making the hockey infobox an exception to that standard so I think we can go forward and edit the template. Pichpich (talk) 14:59, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think I speak for all of us when I say; No thanks, we're happy with the way things are right now. —Krm500 (Communicate!) 23:01, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No, you don't. In fact you speak for no more than a small minority of editors. Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * And your consensus is built upon three users basically. There are plenty of issues to discuss before even considering adding a name to this infobox, one of which you already tapped into with regards to how to caption the infoboxes. But that is not to decided upon here, that's should be discussed about with the whole community since it will affect many, many articles. —Krm500 (Communicate!) 00:25, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm baffled. We moved this discussion to the infobox guideline for wider input. We confirmed the consensus there. What else do you need. I strongly suspect that when you say "I speak for all of us", you mean "a handful of editors from the WikiProject Hockey". You don't own the template and you have a responsibility to either abide by the standards or gather sufficient outside support for making an exception here. Are we really going to go to the mediation cabal to solve this shit. Let it go man. Pichpich (talk) 01:13, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * To be fair, you didn't actually go to that page and ask for wider input. You asked why should you have a name at the top. You didn't ask if it should be mandatory to have a name at the top. You can see based on atleast one persons response there that they didn't think it was a debate and were just being asked a question. -DJSasso (talk) 01:34, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you referring to Jack Merridew's response which starts with "Why?" Because his reply ends with "Endorse the comments of Andy, Chris, and Graham; this is modern web-standards goodness." Pichpich (talk) 02:47, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * There needs to be a wider community input on the matter of if and how show should we caption infoboxes. I think we need to discuss that before implementing any changes here. —Krm500 (Communicate!) 12:44, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Isn't this exactly what happened at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (infoboxes)? In that discussion, only DJsasso, LtPowers and yourself opposed the name-on-top. In other words, all of the new input coming from the wider community is in favour of the name. Moreover, the name-on-top standard has been part of the guideline since October 2007 and it is used in every biographical infobox but this one. You keep saying that there needs to be a wider community input yet every time it comes, you counter that it's insufficient and I haven't seen any indication that you're interested in generating this input. Pichpich (talk) 14:53, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I concluded on MOS Infobox Talk that the consensus was for headings to be mandatory. If you feel my conclusion was in error, the place to have corrected me was there.  Please do so if you feel the need. --Rsl12 (talk) 14:56, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * A name is not a caption, we need to discuss how they should be caption. And that IMO requires a whole lot more community input since it could affect many, many articles. —Krm500 (Communicate!) 15:28, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Caption? I'm not following you. We're talking about having the name at the top of the infobox. You can call it a caption if you want but in any case, there is consensus on the guideline's recommendation to have the name at the top of the infobox. There's also a procedural policy (Policies and guidelines) that specifically states that Editors should attempt to follow guidelines, though they are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. If you can make the case that there's something specific about this infobox that justifies an exception, please do. Pichpich (talk) 16:43, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well the guideline states that infoboxes should have a clear caption, which a name is not. And common sense would be not to use anything, except for something to help screen readers identify the infobox, since it is redundant and clutters the articles. —Krm500 (Communicate!) 19:31, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * What guideline are you reading exactly? Manual of Style (infoboxes) specifically says "The top text line should be bold and contain either the full (official) name or common name of the article's subject" and the only occurrence of the word "caption" is related to the caption of the image. Pichpich (talk) 20:43, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

There's little point in bickering about this. Krm500's assertion of a veto notwithstanding, there's an obvious consensus on the MOS talk which corroborates what's been said here. When the RfC is closed, I trust that the admin responsible will be able to see that. There's nothing more to do here other than to wait for that to happen. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You were the one who brought it up... So basically we should follow guidelines and procedures, but only as long as it fulfills your goal? —Krm500 (Communicate!) 11:53, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It's nice to hear you say that guidelines should be followed. You do realize that this is precisely what adding the name to the top of the infobox is about. Pichpich (talk) 12:14, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I was asking a question, as implied by the the question mark at the end of the sentence. —Krm500 (Communicate!) 15:07, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well I'd love to see you answer that same question. Because if it's "yes, we should follow guidelines even if it doesn't serve my goal" then we can close this debate once and for all. Pichpich (talk) 16:15, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * My answer is no. Now you please answer. —Krm500 (Communicate!) 20:48, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Which is nicely ambiguous. My answer (and the record will show it has always been) that I follow guidelines unless there are exceptional reasons not to. I think it's the only way to avoid repeating the same disputes in fifty places: you settle the basic issue at some central place (the guideline's talk page typically) and then you apply that consensus where it makes sense. If I feel the guideline is wrong, I try and usually fail to have it changed. Then I shut up. I think it's a good system and it was always my understanding that this was the wiki-way. You seem to disagree. Pichpich (talk) 21:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * My thoughts on following guidelines are at User:Art LaPella/Because the guideline says so. Krm500's assertion that guidelines require a clear caption probably refers to Captions, but I would think a person's name is the clearest possible identification. Anyway, the more specific guideline at infoboxes takes precedence over a vague guideline at Wikipedia:Captions because it's a clearer indication of the consensus on this issue. Art LaPella (talk) 01:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I still don't see how a name is a considered a clear caption. This has nothing to do with microformat or web standards, this is just you pushing your style preferences. This is just silly. —Krm500 (Communicate!) 22:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Change made
Being a busybody, I thought I'd pop back in and see why nothing has changed with the hockey infobox. Is there a hold up? --Rsl12 (talk) 15:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's any hold up and I was just asking Andy to propose the required protected edit. Pichpich (talk) 18:44, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The required edit is already in the sandbox and can be seen at Template:Infobox ice hockey player/testcases. -DJSasso (talk) 19:37, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh thanks. I hadn't realized. Can you make the change? Pichpich (talk) 20:02, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I will wait 24 hours just in case whats there doesn't do vcard correctly. As I am sure Andy will know better than I if it is all up to par. -DJSasso (talk) 20:44, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Thanks. Pichpich (talk) 20:49, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I made a minor tweak; but it's fine, thanks. Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 08:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I do hope that those of you that insisted on adding this will go through the couple thousand articles with bracketed disambiguators that this change will have broken since it was a change requested by you all. All you have to do to fix it is put in "name=Joe Smith". -DJSasso (talk) 11:30, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll be glad to help... once I understand what you're saying! Can you give an example? Pichpich (talk) 13:22, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Once all the pages are recached by the server (which might take awhile) the code takes the name from the name of the page. So a page named Doug Harvey (ice hockey) for example will list Doug Harvery (ice hockey) as the players name at the top of the box. You can see this here prior to me fixing this particular page. The parameter name= overides the use of the page name as the name at the top of the infobox. So in my example I added in "name=Doug Harvey" so that the name at the top of the box now shows Doug Harvey. Does that make it any clearer. You can see the result of the fix by clicking on the article. Its not broken persay I suppose, but rather messy might be a better word. -DJSasso (talk) 13:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I imagine there a quite a few of these (I've done the ones in my watchlist) but I imagine a bot would be able to this pretty quickly. --JD554 (talk) 13:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I was trying to think of a way to do this with AWB, but I couldn't think of a way to take the name from the title and strip off the disambiguator. A custom bot could probably do this, but I haven't written any bots on my own and only use prewritten ones because I don't have the knowledge of the wiki's coding requirments for bots. -DJSasso (talk) 13:38, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh I see. We should probably submit a bot request: I'm sure someone will be interested in working out an efficient way of doing this. But the result should probably be double-checked manually and again, I'm willing to chip in. Pichpich (talk) 13:51, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The most efficient way is for people like Andy Mabbet and the others who demanded this change take place go and clean up the mess they've created themselves. Resolute 14:27, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Bot request made. Oh and Resolute, please chill. Pichpich (talk) 14:38, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I dunno. It strikes me as reasonable to believe that the people who want something should be expected to deal with the fallout of the change. Resolute 15:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * As you can see, we are all calmly contemplating solutions. In contrast you're flipping out as if we've broken the wiki. Pichpich (talk) 15:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * ✅ I think I got them all. 648 edits. Maybe I'm wrong though, let me know. – xeno talk 16:26, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * As long as the majority are done, we can catch any outliers as we stumble upon them. Thanks. -DJSasso (talk) 16:32, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * And the number seems reasonable. The template has about 7000 transclusions and from looking at a few random samples in that list, the percentage of articles which are disambiguated is around 10%. Pichpich (talk) 16:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I made a list of all transclusions of the infobox and then excluded anything without a "(". So that should be most or all of them. – xeno talk 16:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Just thinking out loud: there should probably be a maintenance category that contains articles that 1) end in ")" and 2) don't have name=. This should be possible with str functions. – xeno talk 15:27, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request
{| class="infobox" cellpadding="2" style="width: 19em; empty-cells:show; background-color: toccolours; line-height: 1.4em; border: 1px solid toccolours; font-size: 85%;"

should be changed to

{| class="infobox" cellpadding="2" style="width: 19em; empty-cells:show; background-color: toccolours; line-height: 1.4em; border: 1px solid toccolours; font-size: 85%;"

so white space does not result.198.161.203.6 (talk) 17:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You can't make that change without breaking the template, however I think I accomplished what you were trying to do by a different method. -DJSasso (talk) 17:15, 7 May 2010 (UTC)