Template talk:Infobox football biography/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

current_club param - proposed change to documentation

I propose a small change to the documentation of the |current_club= parameter which I believe would better reflect standard practice.

• Current: "For retired players not employed by any club or federation, leave blank."
• Proposed: "For retired players and free agents not currently employed by any club or federation, leave blank."

I'm suggesting this new wording to account for scenarios where a player leaves a club, but has yet to sign elsewhere. Rather than adding 'Free agent', 'Unattached', 'Without club', 'TBA' or any of the other variations that crop up, it is standard practice to blank the parameter (this is discussed here, here, and here). Any objections to this change? Nzd (talk) 11:41, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Was clear for me to leave it blank when he is not with a club, so agree. Kante4 (talk) 11:44, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. GiantSnowman 11:46, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree also -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:58, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:14, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Matthew_hk tc 12:33, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks all, I've made the change now. Nzd (talk) 09:56, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

club-update and nationalteam-update params - proposed changes to documentation

Based on this discussion and this follow-up, I am proposing the following changes to the documentation of the |club-update= and |nationalteam-update= parameters:

• Current: A timestamp (~~~~~) at which the player's infobox club statistics are correct (not needed if the player has retired).
• Proposed: A timestamp at which the player's infobox club statistics are unambiguously correct. Dates should use the same format as the rest of the article; use 5 tildes (~~~~~) to generate the current date/time in dmy format, or {{subst:mdytime}} for mdy format. Not needed if the player has retired.

(with an equivalent change for nationalteam-update).

This incorporates suggestions made by @Struway2 in the previous discussion. Please support/oppose/comment below. Thanks, Nzd (talk) 00:21, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Support, though I'd still like it to state explicitly that the bare date of the last match played shouldn't be used because it's not unambiguous, which is the issue that prompted my initial involvement in the first discussion linked above. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:59, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

@Struway2: How about:

• Proposed: A timestamp at which the player's infobox club statistics are unambiguously correct. The bare date of the last match played should not be used because this is not unambiguous. Dates should use the same format as the rest of the article; use 5 tildes (~~~~~) to generate the current date/time in dmy format, or {{subst:mdytime}} for mdy format. Not needed if the player has retired.

Nzd (talk) 19:25, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Better. thanks, Struway2 (talk) 09:06, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

• Support in principle. Change "Not needed if the player has retired" to "The parameter is not needed if the player has retired." The club update and national team update should use similar wording. The timestamp with seconds is not needed in all cases. If the update is happening days after the last day of play. That is not needed in the documentation, but if someone wants to add it, feel free to. In other words, some players (usually those in more notable notable leagues, teams or simply have a larger following) will be high-volume and timestamp with seconds is needed, but the vast majority of active players don't have this sort of resource contention (think of South- and Central-American leagues, Asian, African and most lower-division leagues around the project) and all that is needed is a date. So to reflect that, we should clarify that the section should reflect a sourced section in the player's biography for statistics. Ultimately, we should be moving player data to wikidata and we can pull the stats from there instead. And if we're writing the count of tildes, WP:MOSNUM suggests it should be written as "five" not "5". Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:51, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I've incorporated your suggested changes. WRT Wikidata, it's something I've pondered myself but it might be an uphill struggle. Nzd (talk) 01:55, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support - The timestamp should indicate to the reader that the stats are correct as to the (that) date. The closer to "now", the better. The wording saying "... correct as of X Monthember 201X" makes it quite logic that the date it is not about his last game, but the last editing update. FkpCascais (talk) 03:22, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support. An improvement on the existing wording. Mattythewhite (talk) 13:36, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

 Done (with cosmetic suggestions from @Walter Görlitz). Nzd (talk) 01:55, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. However I gave clear examples where "bare date of the last match played should not be used because this is not unambiguous" if entirely false. It should not be enforced. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:57, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: I must have misunderstood because I read that to have been covered by the statement "That is not needed in the documentation". However, I'm not sure I fully understand the actual point either, as a "bare date of the last match played" is always going to be ambiguous regardless of where the match has taken place. If bare dates are used "days after the last day of play", then that isn't the "date of the last match played" and common sense can probably prevail. Nzd (talk) 07:17, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

The statement of exact time is not needed in the documentation.

The point is that the documentation is being used to prevent changes mid-play for the hundreds of player articles that are high-traffic and are highly visible. this documentation makes no sense for the thousands of player articles that are updated days after their matches, or after the last day of the season. What sense is there in insisting on the time of update when it was mid-July for a division three player? When an editor reverts your otherwise correct changes because you do not add a time and only a date, and points back to the documentation, it's a clear problem. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:35, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: The point of the change is to address two issues: Using ambiguous bare dates, and using incorrect date formats. Live updates are a separate issue I think. The previous wording already asked for "a timestamp (~~~~~)", so nothing has really changed in that respect (beyond the advice about producing a timestamp in mdy date format).

If an edit contains an unambiguous bare date, I would say that's acceptable as it isn't covered by the statement "The bare date of the last match played should not be used because this is not unambiguous". I'm not aware of the kind of reversions you describe being an issue up to now. Is is something happening now that needs to be addressed, or something you anticipate as a result of this change? I wouldn't object to a clarification, but I'm not sure it's necessary. Nzd (talk) 13:10, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Not about live updates. It's about not needing unambiguous updates for 75% (or more) of the player articles. As for not knowing the kind of reversions I describe a look at the current players listed in Category:Major League Soccer players. They are updated days, weeks and months after last day of play. The time is not an issue. And when anons make changes without adding seconds, they are reverted. That's ignorant. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:59, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: If you aren't referring to live updates, I'm not sure what you mean by "mid-play" then.

It's possible we are talking at cross-purposes, because otherwise the statement about "not needing unambiguous updates for 75% (or more) of the player articles" represents a pretty fundamental disagreement that you have with the existing consensus on this, and is indeed the crux of the issue here.

To be clear, if a bare date is added that is "days, weeks [or] months after last day of play", then that shouldn't be a problem, because it wouldn't be an "ambiguous bare date". I think we're all agreed on that. However, if a bare date is added that might be ambiguous (i.e. the date of the last match played, or close enough that differing timezones would cause an ambiguity), then that most certainly is a problem. In this post by @Struway2, it was explained why these bare dates can cause issues with incorrect data being presented. Nzd (talk) 19:14, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

There are several issues.

Player articles such as Manuel Neuer may be updated frequently. The wording as we have it is appropriate for articles like this.

Player articles such as Sebastian Giovinco are updated regularly by a fan who does all of the statistics for the team. In this case a time is not needed, only the bare date.

Player articles such as Tiago Volpi are updated infrequently. The last update was this past Monday for two matches played. In this case a time is not needed, only the bare date.

Therefore, "a timestamp" is about as helpful a pair of boots to the groin.

Since the majority of articles are updated like the last two (or like Joël Kimwaki have not been updated in over two years and will be updated when someone gets around to it) we should remove the phrase a timestamp from the documentation as it's not needed. Proposal:

The date which the player's infobox club statistics are unambiguously correct. If a bare date of the last match played is ambiguous, use the exact time of the update. The parameter is not needed if the player has retired.

A bare date is no way ambiguous with most articles. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:30, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: Neuer and Volpi are both using unambiguous timestamps so are obviously fine. Giovinco last played on 6 October 2018, and the infobox was apparently updated on 6 October 2018. This is ambiguous because it isn't clear whether the update was made before the match or after. This is the point that I and everyone else have been making. Nzd (talk) 20:55, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

@Nzd and Walter Görlitz: Years ago, there was an editor who updated player stats on Saturday mornings. Not any specific set of players, just any they came across that needed doing. And they used to just put that day's date in the correct-as-of parameter. So when those players played on the Saturday afternoon, readers probably assumed the stats included that day's match: a reasonable assumption, but incorrect.

A bare date is fine as a format, but a bare matchdate can never be unambiguously correct. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:43, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

@Nzd: You've missed the point. Volpi was updated days after his match was played and so the time is superfluous. No one was clamouring to update his article seconds after the final whistle. It's not even clear that the statistics were updated to the last match played. The wording must change to reflect this. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:33, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: So would something like

A date or full timestamp at which the player's infobox club statistics are unambiguously correct. The bare date of the last match played should not be used because this is not unambiguous. Dates should use the same format as the rest of the article; to produce a full timestamp, use five tildes (~~~~~) to generate the current date/time in dmy format, or {{subst:mdytime}} for mdy format. The parameter is not needed if the player has retired.

work? Changes highlighted. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:57, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Perfect! Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:15, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz and Struway2: I have no objection to this. The only thing I would say would be to reiterate the point that was made before about timezones. If you take the match that featured Volpi as an example, you can see that the date depends on where you happen to be watching it, so if a bare date of 7 October 2018 had been used, this would still be somewhat ambiguous. I'm not going to suggest even more clarification in the documentation, but it would be useful to confirm agreement that this is indeed the consensus (presuming it is) - that any bare dates should be genuinely unambiguous. Thanks both, Nzd (talk) 19:27, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Just to reiterate, most articles are not updated within a day of the last match played so timezone is a moot counterargument. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:30, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: I can't help but think you are still missing the point of the timestamp. It has nothing to do with when (or how often) the information is updated. It's supposed to show the reader the point in time at which the stats are correct (this would usually be the same as the time of update, but not necessarily).

Senior club appearances and goals counted for the domestic league only and correct as of... (my bolding)

...means that the information is correct as of that time (or date). This is a data integrity issue. We are already agreed that bare dates that are "days after" are fine. Nzd (talk) 19:50, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

You may think it's supposed to show the reader something, but you have no statistics to show what the readers actually look at in the infobox. I know that because there's no way to record where a reader's eyes look at on a screen. There are metrics—called analytics—to show where mice hover and click. There are other metrics to show how long a page is displayed before it's clicked away, but nothing to actually support your claim that this field is viewed at all. I would argue that it's not viewed by the vast majority of readers. It's much smaller than the rest of the text. Infobox text is already small, and decreasing the font size by one point makes it at the limit (when the default skin and settings are assumed). The timestamp uses small, which makes it smaller than MOS:ACCESS suggests it should be. Also, since the timestamp is displayed quite a distance from the dates, its disconnected from the actual data it's describing. Add a few medal boxes, etc., and I am convinced that readers are not actually looking for the time.

My claim, on the other hand, is that the timestamp has become a tool for the small percentage of articles that are highly visible and frequently updated. There are edit conflicts with them where editors simply increment the infobox count for the player's current team and if they scored, the goal count is incremented. We are supposed to edit with references, but most editors do not. They are part of the thrill of being the one who updated an article.

In the end, the vast majority of articles that are updated are done by statisticians—those who care about a team or league—hours, days, weeks, months and sometimes years after the games have been played. Readers don't care when the article was updated, they only care that the article was updated.

So stop pretending that you know what the readers actually view in the infobox, and while the goal may have been informational, it's become a weapon. Without metrics that show where the reader is looking, it's all conjecture that the field's intended purpose is what you claim it is. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:08, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Not sure how to repond to that (or whether I have the inclination), because this is all completely counter to the wording within the infobox, the documentation, and the general consensus on its use. Perhaps you could suggest improvements to the presentation of the infobox that would alleviate some of these issues? Nzd (talk) 20:34, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

So I've demonstrated that wording used in the documentation for this infobox goes counter to actual usage, counter to the infobox guidelines, counter to accessibility guidelines. I argue that the problem isn't with the layout, but rather with way the documentation has been written (and I have made suggestions for improvements to that) and to how some editors elect to implement the documentation. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:28, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

You haven't "demonstrated" anything whatsoever. You've elected to have a conversation that nobody else is having, based on your own opinion and conjecture, that I'm not sure anybody else agrees with. If there are access issues, then we should be dealing with them, but that's not the same argument. Nzd (talk) 21:55, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

That's an interesting theory. I initiated this conversation because I observed editors reverting anons because they were updating MLS player articles for games played without updating the timestamps. I then got reverted when I restored it and added a date stamp because the "documentation" states it needs seconds. While I may have failed to show you the 1,000 articles that are updated less than once a year, you have failed to show me any statics that show that anyone other than the twits who bite newbies who are only trying to help read the timestamp param. Fine. I'll see you all in the hell you continue to support. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:04, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: Football stats and when they apply to come as a pair: it's pointless displaying a set of stats without an indication of as-of-when, whether the reader looks at it or not. When I suggested a change to the wording (above), to get round the perception that a full timestamp was mandatory, you replied "Perfect". I assumed that meant you were happy with that wording, including the bit that says A date or full timestamp at which the player's infobox club statistics are unambiguously correct. The bare date of the last match played should not be used because this is not unambiguous. That applies whatever format is used and however long after the event it gets added. If we use an ambiguous date(/time), it doesn't matter whether we add it five minutes after the match, the day after, or six months after: it remains ambiguous. Struway2 (talk) 09:57, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

No. I'm happy with the first half. We do not need hours, minutes and seconds when it's days, weeks or months after the last date of play. I will continue to ignore your insistence that a time is needed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:48, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Neither I nor Nzd is insisting that a time is needed. A date unambiguously after the date of the last match included in the stats is perfectly acceptable. Struway2 (talk) 14:58, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

No you're wrong. Look at this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bilal_Duckett&curid=31133793&diff=864135465&oldid=863340198 Charlotte Independence's last match was Saturday past. So the the update of 20 matches played is unambiguously after the team's last match played. If you disagree, explain with a similar example. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:02, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

And this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paulo_Jr._(footballer)&curid=22887817&diff=864160913&oldid=853823478 Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:11, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't see anythng wrong with those updates, other than they should use the date format prevailing in the article. Nor would I see anything wrong with them if they used a bare October 15, which is unambiguously after the October 13 local time (October 14 my time zone) on which the match was played. Struway2 (talk) 15:18, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Nickname

Nickname was always important in sport culture everywhere, so why not include that option - it really lacking.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 16:44, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

It was a parameter, i don't know when it was chopped, but you can search in the archives here and may be in WP:Footy. As i remember people had put initial in the parameter, instead of real nickname. Certainly nickname such as Batigol is notable to mention in infobox, or O Fenômeno. Matthew hk (talk) 17:11, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 1 November 2018

• '''({{abbr|Gls|League goals}})''' -> ('''{{abbr|Gls|League goals}}''')

The parenthesis should not include the bold formatting. Opencooper (talk) 00:45, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. I had a look around and the current usage seems consistent - see points on {{Infobox rugby biography}}. The justification for the change will need to be based on more than just your personal aesthetics. Sorry. Cabayi (talk) 11:05, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

collegeyears4

I am creating an article for a college player who has actually played in four years at college starting from 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017. The template ends at collegeyears3. How can this be fixed. SuperSwift (talk) 11:29, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Did he played for 4 different clubs/colleges? We merged season which the value |collegeyears[n]= was for the start and end year, not single season. Matthew hk (talk) 12:05, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

football kits / current events

This is in suggestion that :

a) Football kits in the "infobox football biography" thingies show the logo and sponsor (in correct proportion to the kit . For example , a F.C Barcelona kit shall show the kit maker , in this case Nike , the sponsor Rakuten and the barca logo in c.p with the kit .)

b) Players , clubs , managers , referees , etc. when currently involved in a match shall show a 'involved in a current event' template at the top of the page (for example if Manchester City F.C. are in a match with United , then it will show on the pages of these clubs , players on the field and on the bench , managers , etc. 'this subject is involved in a current event'

c) Scores , lineups , etc. be updated on the season's pages, for example Liverpool 19-20 season , every 15 minutes . 005X (talk) 08:22, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

You should post this at WT:FOOTY. It's not relevant to this template. – PeeJay 12:18, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

@005X: You should suggest edit in Template talk:Infobox football club. Wrong venue for suggesting edit for Infobox football club in Template talk:Infobox football biography. However, since more people participated in the discussion in WP:Footy, you can suggest edit in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football. Matthew hk (talk) 07:18, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 16 May 2019

Good day I would like to request the opportunity to use the template to write my biography. Itanir87 (talk) 09:19, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

You don't need to edit the template in order to use it in an article. However, you should probably know that it's not appropriate for you to write an article about yourself. For one thing, you're probably not a notable person, and second, there's a massive conflict of interest (see WP:COI). – PeeJay 09:45, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

honorific-suffix paramter

I can't figure out how to use the | honorific-suffix = parameter? Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 17:03, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

You need to use the embed parameter, I think. GiantSnowman 17:13, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

The template says it's part of hCard uses HTML classes. How do we implement it at Gianfranco Zola? Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 17:21, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Why is it needed in that article? GiantSnowman 18:20, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, you can see the addition by User:Openmy for the OMRI and OBE, but would be better suited in parameter format. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 18:27, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Display problem at Javi Poves

Something goes really wrong there, the template is shown as an invisible table that spans the whole page width. Didn't find anything obvious that would have caused it. --mfb (talk) 05:08, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Egghead06 found the problem. Done. --mfb (talk) 05:19, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Fields for national manager years

Hello! Can you add an extra field concerning national team manager years. Which quite simply tells which national teams that the player later coached. Is it also possible to convert player position automatically so player position like midfielder, defender or attacker can convert itself automatically. This is an old template and it needs changing to the interface to a more complete template with not too many fields that isn't necessary. --88.90.220.108 (talk) 19:46, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

The national teams managed by someone can already be listed in the managerial career section (see Roy Hodgson as an example). Unlike the playing career, there doesn't seem to be any need to differentiate between domestic and international careers in the managerial section. Number 57 20:17, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I generally agree with Number 57. One can generally only coach one team at a time, unlike players who can play for both a club and a national team concurrently. But I wouldn't oppose much against a differentiation of club coaching and national team coaching. --Mango från yttre rymden (talk) 18:14, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Always show medals

I have seen elsewhere that it is possible to have the medal table shown by default in an article. The template has it hidden by default and must be pushed ('show') to be viewed. I found out that the paramteter

| show-medals      = yes

is what makes the medal table show by default. I have tested the parameter on football pages, and it works. I don't see that parameter mentioned anywhere on this template documentation, so I think it should be added.

I don't feel I have the mandate or enough knowledge to do it myself. --Mango från yttre rymden (talk) 16:18, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

There's a whole issue with medals in football infoboxes anyway, so this is a non-starter for me. GiantSnowman 18:07, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Please enlighten me user:GiantSnowman --Mango från yttre rymden (talk) 18:26, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Medals shouldn't be displayed in the infobox at all in the view of myself and others. GiantSnowman 18:28, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

That sounds more like an opinion. Why do you think that? --Mango från yttre rymden (talk) 23:55, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

To clarify I don't suggest that medals always should be shown, only that the option should be in this documentation. --Mango från yttre rymden (talk) 18:26, 4 September 2019 (UTC) This was supposed to be its own branch. --Mango från yttre rymden (talk) 23:54, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 27 September 2019

@Jay mc jones: what are you trying to do here? GiantSnowman 13:44, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

• They're just fucking around, GiantSnowman, and I blocked em. Drmies (talk) 21:26, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

@Drmies: suspected as much, thanks! GiantSnowman 08:12, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Nowrap

Is there a reason why white-space: nowrap; is set pretty much everywhere in this infobox? It messes up the mobile version, and can cause pretty wide boxes in some cases; see Enid Tahirović for instance. – Srdjan m (talk) 00:59, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Simplify template code

I saw that the Template:Infobox basketball biography simplified the year1...year30 code (changelog). I wonder if this could be applied to this Template. Winston (talk) 03:42, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

"br separated entries"

These appear to function as a footnote list that uses arbitrary symbols (*, ‡) rather than a standard numbering system. As such, Template:Unbulleted list would be a semantically appropriate replacement. ―cobaltcigs 05:26, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 12 March 2020

Best to change "Playing position" to "Playing position(s)", as often times players play in more than one position. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 22:23, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done per the documentation, which says "The player's most common position or positions." – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:02, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Honorifics

We need to add |honorific_prefix= and |honorific_suffix=, like in {{Infobox person}}. Can someone do that, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:20, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Do we? Why? Either way we have |embed= for stuff like this. GiantSnowman 17:50, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, to avoid messes like Kenny Dalglish. |embed= is not suitable for this use case. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:33, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

You misunderstand me. Why do we need to display them in footballer articles full stop? GiantSnowman 19:42, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

As I said, to avoid messes like Kenny Dalglish. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:08, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't see any mess in that article. What are you referring to? – PeeJay 20:55, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Caps vs apps?

Is there any reason we use "caps" rather than "apps" for a player's club appearances? Players don't earn caps for playing club football, so it's never made sense to me that we would use that terminology in this infobox. It makes sense for the national team, but even then it raises issues in that not all appearances for the national team are "capped" (and in most cases players aren't awarded actual caps any more anyway). – PeeJay 20:56, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

{{{nationalteam1}}} for CONIFA teams?

Please present your opinion regarding this edit. The Székely Land football team is not a national team, but a team representing the Székely Land in Romania. It is not affiliated with FIFA or UEFA. The Székely Land football team does not look like a national team, because it only represents the Székely minority in Romania. 82.78.61.178 (talk) 07:07, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Example adjust

We don't normally put the F.C. after the team name in the clubs1, youthclubs1, collegeclubs1 fields, maybe the examples should be adjusted and the F.C. removed in the info boxes here? Govvy (talk) 08:21, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Good idea. It's in the documentation, which I think you should be able to edit? Number 57 15:11, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

@Number 57: I can't edit templates that are template locked. Govvy (talk) 16:59, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

The documentation does not appear to be template locked. IPs and new users seem to edit it regularly. Number 57 17:51, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

National teams

Hello! Is it possible to add a parameter concerning which national teams players have trained. And the years in between. Clubs and national team are often separated in that case. Yours sincerely, Sondre --88.91.100.244 (talk) 14:53, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

It already has a section for national teams, although it is only for appearances. I'm not sure why we would want to add details on when players trained with the national team? Number 57 14:54, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

@Number 57: I think OP means separate the 'teams managed' section into clubs and national teams, like we do for playing career... GiantSnowman 16:31, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, that's how I read it, and I'm not sure it would be necessary. Clubs and national teams aren't distinguished in the same way for coaches as they are for players, so separating out a coach's positions with national teams would only end up creating gaps in each list. – PeeJay 16:41, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Native name

Thoughts on adding a native_name (+ native_name_lang) parameter, as we have at, for example, {{Infobox person}}? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 19:15, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Not really sure this is necessary? I don't really see what it adds to have the name written in another alphabet in the infobox. Also, I can see it being a cause for edit warring over players whose names have diacritics. Number 57 20:28, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Given that most (if not all) bio infoboxes have the parameter, I don't see why we shouldn't add it to footballers. Also, we already include the native name in the bracket after the player's name in the lede (before the "born 1 January 1990"). Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 22:03, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

I know not all have it, as I've written hundreds of articles on Israeli politicians and the infobox for them (which could include Hebrew or Arabic names) doesn't have it :) The infobox is much more of a summary in the article, and I don't think the native name is important enough information to be included. Number 57 22:30, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 3 December 2020

Is there a way to add a weight field just below the height field? Sf46 (talk) 20:52, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

This is not a field we would include on footballer articles, so no. GiantSnowman 21:06, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

The issue with weight is that it varies too often. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 21:33, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Infobox wrapping tweak

Discussion

This template currently (and historically) nowraps almost all data. There's no real reason for this; it shouldn't be enforced by default, but manually using {{nowrap}} if it is genuinely required for clarity. At present, this causes subsequent infoboxes and sidebars not to fit flush with this template. This is ugly and distracting and doesn't really server any purpose.

See Template:Infobox football biography/testcases#Wrapping of long columns for the proposed fix. Unless there's constructive rejection then I'll push this in a while. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 21:54, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

@Thumperward: Sorry, but I don't see the issue with how the infobox works at the moment. Can you clarify what the infobox on the right in the sandbox test case offers more than the version on the left? Honestly, the one on the right looks appalling. Why do we need club names on two different rows? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 22:15, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree, I would like for it to stay the same and not to be wrapped, I'd rather the information for each club to stay on one line.--Ortizesp (talk) 23:01, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I have no issues, in theory, to wrapping, but I think the proposed version is too narrow. GiantSnowman 23:02, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree that it looks too narrow. The current version looks better there IMO. Number 57 00:55, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm not interested in personal aesthetic preferences here. Unnecessary nowraps have a long-running tendency to break mobile (where an ever-increasing number of page views come from), and editors should in general expect that templates should be flush with one another rather than having to account for random wikiproject preferences when laying out articles. The question is whether removing the existing overrides (which should have been removed when I completely rewrote the infobox all those years ago) actually break things. People should try to identify pathological cases (say, where a player's clubs result in massively lengthening the table) which might cause this to break. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:22, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Is it possible to implement two versions, based on screen width/device used? Your proposed version for mobiles, and the current version for PC? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 16:28, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

No. {{Nowrap}} has its uses, and may very well be required on mobile occasionally. Furthermore, this would be massively more effort than the above proposition. I've added a more pathological case (which is still realistic) which increases the width by nearly 50%. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:41, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

I was going to report this, but it looks like someone beat me to it. I looked up Asmir Begović the other day and I noticed that the appearances and goals were totally misaligned if the team name is somewhat long, which, I'm sure you'll agree, looks pretty bad. Also, sometimes there's a horizontal scrollbar when the birth place is too long. Since we have a lot of readers on mobile, I think we should prioritize getting this fixed. – Srđan (talk) 17:07, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

I think this is more of an issue specific to mobile view – when viewing it on desktop view on a phone, there is no issue. Number 57 17:18, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Infoboxes #Ali Daei for another complaint about this template producing an over-wide infobox at Ali Daei. A standard infobox is 22em wide (271px in Vector skin) but the infobox in Ali Daei is 333px (a 23% increase). --RexxS (talk) 00:28, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

I've now synced this. Please let me know if this breaks anything (again, the operative word is breaks: in some cases this will cause players with long careers to have very long infoboxes, and it may result in a lot of wrapping, but the alternative is too many cases where a single long club name causes massive layout issues that are impossible for editors to fix). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:19, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

I've undone the change as there was clearly no consensus to implement it. It led to even short club names like "Boca Juniors" being split over two lines. Number 57 16:20, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

"I don't like it" is not what consensus means. If you have something to contribute then you make a proper case for it rather than hovering around and using your admin bit as a veto. Christ. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:23, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

You are virtually the only person in the discussion pushing for this change. Most of us are against this. Calm down, and wait for a proper consensus. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 16:30, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

I have given a reason why it is not suitable – i.e. even short club names get split over two rows. Perhaps you could propose a solution that will only affect very long clubs names like Wolverhampton Wanderers. Number 57 16:31, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Opinions

• Keep as is - the proposed is a retrograde step based on the example. Too narrow and succeeds in making it aesthetically worse and harder for the reader to quickly and efficiently read the information displayed in the infobox. There may be names that are shortened as a solution, or a minor tweak on the width of fields, but this feels like the wrong way, by much too far.Fleets (talk) 16:35, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
• Keep as is the proposed version is not an improvement, sorry. Single long club names is a much more easily fixed issue than massive and confusing wrapping ("Wolverhampton" or "Inverness CT" instead of "Wolverhampton Wanderers" or "Inverness Caledonian Thistle" if we absolutely have to). SportingFlyer T·C 16:38, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
• Keep as is As above, it isn't an improvement. It just extends the infobox for no good reason which would just clutter certain articles and interfere with picture locations. Also I imagine it can't be that helpful for non-native English speakers. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:50, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
• Keep as is, for now. The proposed solution looks terrible. If there is a problem with mobile views, the solution shouldn't mess up long-established desktop views. This seems a case where a separate mobile view should be implemented using templatestyles. The mobile view can then be changed without changing desktop views. —  Jts1882 | talk  17:06, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
• Keep as is with Number57's proposal to change Playing Positions to Positions. The existing method is fine and I prefer it over the proposed alternative. Provides more consistency with all clubs on one line, as opposed to some on one and others on two. RedPatchBoy (talk) 17:09, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
• Keep as is. The proposed version is not an improvement. Kante4 (talk) 18:16, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
• Keep as is, subject to 'position(s)' being changed per below. GiantSnowman 19:40, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Solution

Actually, a much easier solution would be to change "Playing position(s)" to just "Position(s)". If you did that, the left-hand side infobox here would be the same width as the template below it, without creating any of the wrapping issues. You can see what it would look like here (I deleted the position column rather than edit the sandbox), but the width would be the same if it were brought back as just 'Position(s)'. What do people think about this? Other sports infoboxes I checked (rugby, American Football, AFL) use simply 'Position' or 'Positions'. Number 57 17:17, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

• Support - Nice, that seems to solve the issue perfectly. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 17:22, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
• I support this. SportingFlyer T·C 18:03, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support - A good solution. Kante4 (talk) 18:16, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support - per my vote above RedPatchBoy (talk) 19:06, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support - sounds sensible. The chance of a well-meaning editor adding a non-playing position (such as scout or coach) is slim. GiantSnowman 19:40, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support - as a practical solution. It won't solve the issue of really long club names, but these can be dealt with on a case by case basis with a <br /> to force the linebreak. —  Jts1882 | talk  11:38, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

@Number 57: I must say I don't quite understand what you're proposing. Are you saying you want to keep the nowrap but just shorten the "Playing position(s)" to "Position(s)" or are you saying you want to remove the nowrap and shorten that label? My primary concern is fixing the mobile view, so I'm trying to figure out if this would actually fix it. – Srđan (talk) 13:53, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the nowrap would be kept. However, the issue you're talking about isn't solved by removing the nowrap (I have checked the testcases on mobile view, and the version with the nowrap removed still has the columns out of sync – the lines on the Maradona infobox for Barcelona, Napoli and Sevilla (all of which would be unaffected by wrapping) don't match up). I suspect you would need something to force the apps/goals columns to be a consistent width to fix this. Number 57 14:08, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

The styles for the columns get passed to {{Infobox3cols}} with style parameters |labelstyle=, |datastyle=, |datastylea=, |datastyleb= and |datastylec=. These contain the nowrap styles. If a set of matching class parameters were created in {{Infobox3cols}} then templatestyles can be customised for mobile and different screen sizes as desired, e.g. keep no wrap for desktop, remove for mobile. There are also some class parameters in {{Infobox3cols}} associated with each row. It's possible these could be used without changing {{Infobox3cols}} by adding a |class14= for |data14=, etc. to {{Infobox football biography}}. —  Jts1882 | talk  14:36, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Goalkeepers

Since the league goals for most goalkeepers are always 0, I suggest we should add the option of total goals into clean sheets instead on infobox. Gls (goals) to CS (clean sheets) of league goals

• Gls code

{{{goals1}}}, {{{goals2}}}... {{{goals39}}}

A list of goals that the player has been awarded in league competition only for each club.

• CS code

{{{cleansheets1}}}, {{{cleansheets2}}}... {{{cleansheets39}}}

A list of clean sheets that the player has been awarded in league competition only for each club.

- AFRX (talk) 20:51, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

This discussion has already been brought up multiple times. Two main issues:

1. Many goalkeepers, most notably like Rogério Ceni, have scored goals. How would you deal with that?
2. Cleansheets are very difficult to source. Most football database websites, like Soccerway, don't have separate columns for clean sheets. You would need to count the games one by one to see the goals conceded. Also, what if the GK was subbed out on the 45th minute in a 1-0 win. Do both GKs get the clean sheet? How does that work

So yeah, the easiest thing to do is stick to the current format. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 21:29, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, this comes top every so often and is, respectfully, an absolute non-starter. GiantSnowman 22:03, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Per Nehme and GS, it's an idea that, while well-founded, is simply far to difficult to enact due to the sourcing issue as may websites particularly for lower levels and past results do not keep detailed stats on it, meaning you would have to go game-by-game. The only other alternative I could see is to simply only record games played for keepers and have no brackets. Although this does eliminate the ability for those keepers who have scored to be recorded. Also, while rare, some keepers occasionally play out or an outfielder in goal in an emergency. The status quo is simply the best choice due to no other realistic alternatives. RedPatchBoy (talk) 22:16, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Additionally, clean sheets is just a betting statistic - it is not something which is generally factored into the game like goals are. Infoboxes are there to summarise important information, not to serve as exhaustive sheets of trivia. We have more than enough data in this one already. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:54, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

The yearly proposal. But no, not a good idea per reasons above. Kante4 (talk) 15:16, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

currentclub parameter

Can we make it so that the parameter doesn't have "nowrap" automatically on? The fact that the information may be displayed in two (or more) lines is not an issue with this specific parameter (unlike, for example, the teams, years, caps, goals). I would go as far as saying that everything in the "Personal information" box (name, date of birth, place of birth, height, position(s)) also don't need to be nowrapped. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 17:18, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Change parameter name

We have collegeyears1, college1, collegecaps1 and collegegoals1. We also have years1, clubs1, caps1 and goals1. We have edit warring over the second set as they represent league participation only. Would it make sense to change these parameters to more accurately reflect that by changing them to include the word "league"? At the very least if we make the last two leaguecaps1 and leaguegoals1, but leagueyears1 would not be a problem. If we achieve consensus on a change, we could commission a bot to make the changes and then deprecate the old values once that has been completed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:15, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't think this is necessary. GiantSnowman 20:48, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

You prefer the lack of clarity and edit wars? Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:02, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

It is sufficiently clear and if you think changing the parameters will prevent well-meaning IPs adding cup games to the infobox you are sadly mistaken. GiantSnowman 09:35, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't oppose a change to leaguecaps1 and leaguegoals1, so long as it was done as a one-off bot job and then the old names really were deprecated. It'd provide clarity at the point of editing, which is clearly not the case with the explanatory counted for the domestic league only note that helps the reader but doesn't appear in the edit window. It wouldn't be appropriate to rename years1, because that parameter is for years contracted, not for years they actually played a league game in. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:50, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Having the parameters named differently would cause more confusion IMHO. GiantSnowman 09:51, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Having them named specifically might cause less. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:53, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Not if there is years followed by leaguewhatever. GiantSnowman 09:56, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Another issue that might pop up is editors assuming that, since there is a leaguecaps parameter, they should also add a corresponding "cupcaps" parameter. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 11:31, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

And if they added the parameter, it would do nothing. They would have to gain consensus for it to be added. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:47, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Less nowrap?

The infobox is often too wide. For example – In Elvir Bolić this is due to {{{birth_place}}} containing 3 parts and having the nowrap class. — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 11:24, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I'd say the issue there is the unnecessarily long birthplace. City + Country is enough. Number 57 21:09, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I also agree that nowrap shouldn't be forced for parameters in the Personal information section. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 21:15, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 7 June 2021

It would be ideal for all "Personal information" parameters (from the "Full name" to the "Position(s)" parameter) to not be "nowrapped". The parameter Full name is already not "nowrapped"; all the other Personal information parameters should also be the same way. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 18:48, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. As can be seen from the template's edit history and the previous section, this change would be controversial and so needs consensus. See Special:PermaLink/1022603384 for an example of a page that would be broken by this change. Personally I think the infobox is already wide enough and anything which will wrap should be allowed to wrap. User:GKFX^talk 18:55, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

@GKFX: My point is that, in the example you provided, it would be ideal for us not to have to resort to using <br tags. Without a forced nowrap, the infobox would automatically make "SFR Yugoslavia" go to the second row. This is also very beneficial for mobile devices. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 22:51, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I got lost in the double negative of "not be nowrapped".  Done User:GKFX^talk 23:08, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

@GKFX: Thanks, can you do the same for the current squad parameter as well? Often times we deal with long club names, or a long "sentence" due to loans. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 00:43, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

@GKFX: I'm seeing some cases (~15 or so) where it's throwing span errors or div-span-flip errors on two WP:LINT categories I've been watching for a while, and the articles that are affected haven't been edited this week, and they weren't showing up on those lint pages yesterday. LINT HTML misnesting and LINT Miscellaneous issues Is it possible your template change from today is causing these? I see you did add a span, and while I'm not seeing an issue of misnesting with your change, I'm also not a code master either. Zinnober9 (talk) 01:36, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

That should all now be  Done – shout if any further problems. User:GKFX^talk 10:28, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

@GKFX: This is causing issues for me with unnecessary line breaks on the left column, e.g. at George Francomb, where, despite the fact that all the data fits on to one line, the left column is split onto two lines in multiple cases. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 10:46, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

I've reverted this temporarily due to the aforementioned display issues. S.A. Julio (talk) 11:59, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

I've just overwritten that with a new version that put an extra parameter in Infobox3cols to better handle this sort of situation. User:GKFX^talk 12:02, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

MOS:TOPRESENT

This template's guidelines currently directly contradict MOS:TOPRESENT, which specifies "Do not use incomplete-looking constructions such as 1982– and 1982–". AllegedlyHuman (talk) 02:36, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 22 July 2021

The label "Honours" should be changed to "Olympic medals", to be more in line with WP:FOOTYMEDALS (and to make it clearer to both the reader and editors which types of honours are included). Nehme₁₄₉₉ 17:23, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Olympic medals are not the only ones used for this section; I have seen them used on player articles for things like the Asian Games. Number 57 17:49, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

@Number 57: Per WP:FOOTYMEDALS, they should only be used for the Olympics. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 18:42, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Erm, I'm not seeing a consensus in the linked discussion for Olympics only as two editors seemed to be ok with other multi sport events. I think a proper RfC with a clear outcome would be needed to make this change given how common it is to have non-Olympic medals in the section. I'd suggest three options: Olympics only, major multi-sport events, or everything.

It would be silly to rename the section right now, given there are tonnes of non-Olympic medals in the section on various articles. If there does end up being a consensus for Olympics only, I think a bot would need to remove them all before the section could be renamed, otherwise it'll end up with infoboxes looking a bit odd. Number 57 19:33, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

@Number 57: Done. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 16:04, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

image_size should be removed

MOS:IMAGESIZE is fairly clear, and we should deprecate sizing in this an all other football templates including the ones for leagues, clubs and tournaments. The process should be add a upright = parameter and possibly have a bot convert the image_size = over (although, it might take some human intervention. Once we're satisfied, remove the image_size = parameter. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:27, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Replace "Teams managed" to "Teams coached"

Can you please replace |manageryearsN= and |managerclubsN= to |coachyearsN= and |coachclubsN=? Because a coach is a figure in charge of providing training portions, formulating strategies, and providing instructions in the field, while a manager is responsible for managing administration and preparation of the team off the field. -St3095 ^(?) 03:07, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

References

Potential Infobox Text Change?

Wouldn't replacing "Senior club appearances and goals counted for the domestic league only and correct as of" with "Senior club domestic league apps / goals only correct as of" be better? It is worded better, reads better and the fact that only Domestic League appearances and goals are allowed, is inherently obvious in context. --Christhecoolboy (talk) 20:16, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

I would suggest something like "Club domestic league apps and goals correct as of" - the 'senior' is apparent from the section, and the 'only' is unnecessary. GiantSnowman 21:00, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

This is true. My issue with the current text is compared to the text for International Caps, the domestic one is over-worded, and while grammatically correct, it kind of reads awkwardly. Christhecoolboy (talk) 21:31, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 19 May 2022

I'd like to see the change made, as proposed in Template talk:Infobox football biography; Specifically, changing the line, "Senior club appearances and goals counted for the domestic league only and correct as of" to "Club domestic league apps and goals correct as of". This change has been unopposed in the Talk for two weeks, and based on the fact that the section that the text is referring to is titled "Senior Career", the new text works within that context, so there shouldn't be any issue with it. Christhecoolboy (talk) 13:50, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done I tweaked the wording just a bit for clarity. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:09, 19 May 2022 (UTC)