Jump to content

Template talk:Infobox ice hockey biography/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Name

Resolved

In common with the vast majority of biographical infoboxes (e.g. {{Infobox person}}), I think that this template should include a "name" parameter. It could also then be upgraded to emit an hCard microformat. Would anyone object? Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 11:18, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the name parameter has been rejected in the past. Not really sure what the other thing you mentioned would do when it comes to infoboxes. -Djsasso (talk) 15:59, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Because it was not wanted in the past doesn't mean that consensus can't change now ;-) Do you know why it was not considered necessary?
For more on the hCard microformat, please see those pages; but, in brief, it tells computers (such as individual users' and search spiders) what the information in that infobox is about. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 10:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh I didn't say it couldn't change. I think it just had to do with being redundant. -Djsasso (talk) 17:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, if there are no current objections (in which case let's debate them) I propose to add a name parameter, as used in most biographical infoboxes. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

My proposal is to replace: 

{| class="infobox" cellpadding="2" style="width: 19em; empty-cells:show; background-color: toccolours; line-height: 1.4em; border: 1px solid toccolours; font-size: 85%;"
<!-- ###### Image -->
{{#if:{{{image|}}}|
{{!}} colspan="2" style="text-align: center; padding-top: 0.6em; padding-bottom: 0.7em; border-bottom: 1px solid #ccddee;" {{!}} [[Image:{{{image}}}|{{{image_size}}}|center]] {{#if:{{{image_caption<includeonly>|</includeonly>}}}|<br />''{{{image_caption}}}''}}}}

with:

[redacted - see better code, below]

Can someone please check my code, before I make an {{editprotected}} request? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Personally I would take the suggestion to WT:HOCKEY first since they have a big stake and not alot of people probably watch this talk page. -Djsasso (talk) 16:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Done; though I do think my posts here give fair warning. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
While I find adding a name parameter to be pointless in general, as it is obvious who the infobox is referring to by the name of the article, if the hCard microformat is viewed as a useful feature, and this is required, then I have no issue with adding it. Resolute 20:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
To be clear, I don't disagree with your proposal, just since its such a highly used template that I thought maybe it should be mentioned there. If you feel its necessary then go ahead, though I too think its pretty pointless, except perhaps for the microformat. -Djsasso (talk) 20:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

No comments, so I've added an {{editprotected}} request. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

{{EP}} Stifle (talk) 10:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Template code is screwed up now, infoboxes with images become twice as wide... —Krm500 (Communicate!) 16:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I see that someone has already reverted the template, so I can't see the effects; but can anybody suggest what's wrong, please? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
I believe this version will work:
{| class="infobox vcard" cellpadding="2" style="width:19em; empty-cells:show; line-height:1.4; font-size:85%;"
|-
! class="fn" colspan="2" {{!}} {{{name|{{PAGENAME}}}}}
<!-- ###### Image -->
|-
{{#if:{{{image|}}}|
{{!}} colspan="2" style="text-align: center; padding-top: 0.6em; padding-bottom: 0.7em; border-bottom: 1px solid #ccddee;" {{!}} [[Image:{{{image}}}|{{{image_size}}}|center]] {{#if:{{{image_caption<includeonly>|</includeonly>}}}|<br />''{{{image_caption}}}''}}}}
The problem was that you put the two cells in the same row. I also corrected several other mistakes—some old, some new. ({{PAGENAME}} is a magic word, not a parameter, and "toccolours" is a class name, not a color). —Ms2ger (talk) 17:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. I've added another {{editprotected}} request. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Consider using a template sandbox. Stifle (talk) 11:23, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
[I missed this at the time] Ms2ger has provided corrected code, above. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
The addition of a name at the top of the box has not been agreed to. And if I recall that is all this code is doing? However, I will make the change. -Djsasso (talk) 14:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. I think this has been agreed; and the change doesn't just add the name, but also an hCard microformat. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks awful... —Krm500 (Communicate!) 17:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. -Djsasso (talk) 18:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
There is no reason why it can't be styled, if desired. Have a look at other biographical infoboxes, such as that on Tim Berners-Lee, for example. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Or indeed any other infobox on the encyclopedia. I'd prefer it were an HTML caption, but baby steps here. I've made some further tweaks to the sandbox code but I'm not ready to propose them yet. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I actually think the example looks horrible as well... -Djsasso (talk) 20:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I just don't get it, the infobox sits right next to the lead and under the page title, where you clearly can see the header and bolded name. Just because other infoboxes display the subjects name at the top doesn't mean we need too. —Krm500 (Communicate!) 22:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Other infoboxes do this because the W3C suggests that tables are given a clear caption to indicate the purpose of the table. And if there's project-wide consensus to title infoboxes, which there is, then individual WikiProjects aren't really in a position to opt out of it because they happen not to be used to it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 01:31, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh really? And a name does not equal a "clear caption to indicate the purpose of the table", Summary/Short info would do that. —Krm500 (Communicate!) 02:27, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
There is also project-wide consensus to deploy the hCard microformat in biographical infoboxes; and that requires a name property. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:01, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Can be implemented, but the name does not have to be visible. —Krm500 (Communicate!) 13:11, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Microformats should not use hidden data. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:23, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) This new feature even disregard the MOS for infoboxes so I don't know where you are getting your statements from.

The top text line should be bold and contain the full (official) name of the article's subject; for people common name is optional. This does not need to match the article's Wikipedia title. It should not contain a link. Avoid {{PAGENAME}} as pages may be moved for disambiguation.

— Fourth paragraph, Manual of Style for infoboxes

It clearly also state that pagename should not be used, so we don't get horror examples like this one. —Krm500 (Communicate!) 02:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that that part of the MoS is not reflecting current consensus, nor current practise. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:01, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
The MOS state that it can be done your way, and other wikiprojects can use it as far as I'm concerned, but the consensus here is that we choose not to. —Krm500 (Communicate!) 13:11, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
"Consensus here" is an interesting concept; but even so, I do not believe that you are correct, from the discussion above. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:23, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Well you have only made a bunch of statements without backing them up, while I have been referring to the MOS. And there is nothing confusing with consensus, we have a consensus regarding names which comply with the MOS so there shouldn't be a problem. —Krm500 (Communicate!) 23:06, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
No; I've referred to the complete absence of objection, here and at WT:HOCKEY, from August 2008, until yours. That's zero objections in eleven months. And your claims of "consensus here" are not backed up by the MoS. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:33, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone else wish to contribute? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I hate to say it but I think you are seeing that there isn't any consensus. Because no one said yeah we definitely need it. People have pretty much said no, or I guess so. -DJSasso (talk) 01:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Far from it; the only objections in eleven months were on the grounds of fixable aesthetics and an MOS clause which was changed some time ago. AFAICT, this is the only biographical infobox, throughout Wikipedia, which does not display the subject's name. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
But there has been no one actually supporting you. You can only claim lack of objection when there are no objections. But there have been some. It doesn't matter if this is the only box that doesn't or does use them. There is no requirement that every infobox have a name in them. -DJSasso (talk) 03:24, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Straw man. Men, in fact. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Agree with the design of the current template. No compelling reason to add a redundant name field in large bold font at the top of the box, when the article name is already there. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
If you want other opinions, I'll add mine as well. Like Andrewsc said above, there is no point in adding the name to the infobox when the article has the name right there in the title and (in nearly every biography article, if not all) as the first words of the article itself. Regardless of whether other infoboxes use this method, there is no benefit to adding the name to the page for a third time, and it will just create extra work when there is much more productive work that can be done. Kaiser matias (talk) 22:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I dunno, I like the clean design of the current template, but Andy has a point. Unlabeled tables of information can be confusing, and the microformatting argument is likewise compelling. Powers T 12:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
As mentioned earlier in the dicussion microformating can be achieved with a hidden name parameter, so showing the name does not affect this template being microformat compatible. As Krm500 mentioned above, if we are labeling the table so as not to be confused about its purpose, then we should name it Summary or something like that, not just put the name of the subject as the label. -DJSasso (talk) 13:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but as Andy pointed out, microformats should not use hidden fields. Powers T 14:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Right but all I am saying is that they are not restricted from doing so. ie there is no standard saying that they can't do so, and on few sites about microformats I just searched on google they actually explain how and why you would do so. -DJSasso (talk) 14:06, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
This isn't just about emitting a microformat; but also about convenience for our users. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Right and most of the people objecting have said that there is no added convenience for our users since the name of the subject is in bold on the very first line of the article if not already the title of the article. -DJSasso (talk) 20:27, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Not one of them has said that; and had they done, they would have done so without foundation. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)That is exactly what I wrote above. Adding the name to the infobox contributes nothing to the article. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Andy has proposed changing the guideline that says we do not need to use a name at the top of the infobox to say that all infoboxes must have the name at top here -DJSasso (talk) 22:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Just a note for the future, but if you are going to invite people to a discussion you need to do so in a neutral manner otherwise you are violating WP:CANVASS. This message is clearly not neutral. It also has misinformation, in that I have said no such thing. Please do not misrepresent me in such a dishonest manner. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry what part of that is not neutral. I did not state my position. I merely stated that you were proposing a change to guideline. I followed WP:CANVASS to the letter and stated exactly what you are proposing, you wish to change the guideline to say that names are required in infoboxes. What part of that is incorrect? -DJSasso (talk) 23:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Remove flagicons?

Can someone remove the flagicon from the nationality field, per MOS:FLAG#Use_of_flags_for_sportspeople? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hippo43 (talk • contribs) 22:35, March 20, 2009

It is a guideline and not a policy, so if it were to be removed it shall be up for discussion. But in this case I don't see any need since this infobox adhere to the guideline; Nationality is used to inform readers of which country the player represent, or would represent, in international competitions governed by the IIHF. —Krm500 (Communicate!) 21:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't understand what you mean by " But in this case I don't see any need since this infobox adhere to the guideline". --hippo43 (talk) 22:28, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
I think he means that the nationality field in this infobox is supposed to be used to indicate the player's national team. The guideline recommends so, but the infobox instructions are unclear on this. There is also a separate birth_place field with country (the guideline is supposed to be moved from birth_date field), which suggests that the nationality field does not indicate place of birth. However, there is two fields for nationality. That might be a topic for discussion, since the guideline recommends the "most apt" country is to be used. --Bamsefar75 (talk) 06:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
I will have to find the link, but this has been discussed at length and came down to the fact that flags will continue to be used in hockey infobox. I forget on where the hockey flag preferences page is on WP:HOCKEY -Djsasso (talk) 13:40, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Doesn't WP:MOS supersede WP:HOCKEY? In that case, the former policy should be adhered with regards to flag icons. B/c other sport wikiprojects follow WP:MOSFLAG to a tee. --Madchester (talk) 03:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
WP:IAR supersedes WP:MOSFLAG which is only a guideline. And not having flags gets in the way of making a better encyclopedia, so its clearly an IAR situation. -Djsasso (talk) 12:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
While I am abivalent on the use of flagicons - they can stay or they can go - the fact that other sport projects do things a certain way holds no value to me as an argument, because frankly, many of the other sporting projects have standards that I find completely ridiculous. And, fwiw, I see no reason to IAR a guideline anyway. There seems to be no consensus to change at this point, so I would suggest that policy overrules the MOSFLAG guideline. Resolute 14:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Using the flag in addition to the country's name is redundant. I think the flagicons should go.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 19:14, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

If the flag icons are kept this template should be using the ice hockey flag icon template.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 11:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

That template links to a different article and would not always be correct for this usage. -Djsasso (talk) 11:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Why would it not be correct?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 11:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Because it links to the national team of said country, which this field does not always signify that they played for the national team. While it is true that if a player played for the Canadian national team they will obviously have a Canadian flag. But not all people with a Canadian flag will have played for the national team. Basically it creates an incorrect association. -Djsasso (talk) 12:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Krm500 and Bamsefar75 wrote above that the nationality field indicates the player's national team eligibility. Is that incorrect?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 18:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Correct. But the point is that it would give the impression they were on the team if we linked directly to it. -Djsasso (talk) 18:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
If the field is about the national team it should link to it.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 18:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
The field is about their nationality which is determined by which team they have played for internationally or would play for internationally should they make the team. -Djsasso (talk) 19:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
So we agree that the link to the national team is appropriate?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 20:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
No, it would be incorrect since the player may never have played for his national team. —Krm500 (Communicate!) 00:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

For me, the flagicons should go. Djsasso's point about linking is a good one. Further, some players who have never played international hockey will be eligible for more than one country - how do we assign a sporting nationality to them? --hippo43 (talk) 03:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposal

While I remain neutral on the existence of the flagicons, I do recognize that they are redundant, since the birthplace field lists the same country 99% of the time. Perhaps we could rename the Nationality field to something along the lines of "International representation" (something shorter, obviously), and use it only with players who have actually played internationally. And yes, for players who have switched nationalities, multiple entries would be required. Such a change would necessitate a whole lot of work, however, as the field would have to be removed from hundreds, if not thousands, of articles. Resolute 03:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

This could probably be rigged up in AWB if there is consesus to do this, might want to link from the main wp:hockey talk page to this discussion though as it will affect thousands of articles. -Djsasso (talk) 12:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I think this would be too tricky to implement. Do we go solely by IIHF major tournaments? Any international representation? Lots of Canadians play for say, U17 or Team Ontario...would this make them eligibile? Do all US NTDP players become eligible automatically? Do all Soviet-born players get 2-3 fields? (USSR, CIS, new country...and if they switch it's 4!). I think this should be hammered out before potentially causing problems with flag removal/additions. --Львівське (talk) 17:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
    I think you might be making it more confusing than necessary. We would count anyone who played on any level of international competition for a national team. And I don't think there are that many players who would have more than one flag that it is an issue. -Djsasso (talk) 17:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
    Perhaps...still, 3-4 fields would be needed for those who ran the USSR/CIS/United Team/Russia gauntlet. It's not a lot of players, thankfully.--Львівське (talk) 21:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
    Yeah I don't think it would be a problem to add a couple more. They only show up if needed anyways :) -Djsasso (talk) 22:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
    We wouldn't need multiple fields for multiple teams. Just use linebreaks as we do with professional teams. Resolute 17:15, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Question: What implications will this have on all the other charts/listings we have with nationality? Rosters, drafts, etc.?--Львівське (talk) 20:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
    None, this is just the infobox template talk page, so it would just be for this template. -Djsasso (talk) 20:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the automatic flag per the above discussion. Rettetast (talk) 19:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The consensus actually appears to be to leave the flag and change the name of the field. -Djsasso (talk) 19:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
There is consensus to change the name of the field. I hesitate to say there is a consensus to remove the flag, but there is no consensus to keep it. Perhaps the flag discussion should start again on the basis of the new meaning of the field.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 21:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Alt. Proposal

Should we not go through with this, and keep the flags as they are, I propose the qualifier to avoid "dual citizenship" disputes or other problems is: flag 1) first country they played hockey in AND were a citizen, flag 2) if they decide to play for another country nationally.

Result: Kolzig situation -> never played in south africa; never had canadian citizenship so only germany applies. Brett Hull situation -> born in canada, played in canada. Canada flag. Played for USA, USA is flag 2. Gretzky -> born in canada, citizen, played in and for canada. Has american dual citizenship now but there is nothing hockey related to it so only CAN applies. (same goes for Yzerman)

I think this would level out any other flag issues we have under the current "nationality" field, and in turn works for all other WP lists that use the nationality field. In the case of listings, use only flag 2.

Thoughts?--Львівське (talk) 20:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. -Djsasso (talk) 20:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
This makes sense to me, except for a few cases. Let's say player X was born in Finland and is drafted in the CHL Import Draft by the Portland Winterhawks. He plays his few years in the WHL and is drafted by the LA Kings. He plays 10 years in the NHL and decides to retire. He pulls a "Brett Favre" and unretired two years later, however in his retirement he marries a Canadian and therefore acquires Canadian citizenship while still living in Los Angeles. When he unretires he plays for the New York Rangers. Does he qualify for a Canadian flag as he played in a Canadian league under this proposal? Let's say he is traded by Portland to the Saskatoon Blades and then is drafted, does he then qualify for a Canadian flag? My problem would be that yes he is technically eligible for Team Canada as a result of his marriage, but would he use it?
As I mentioned in WP:HOCKEY, the soccer people addressed this by only using the player's international experience. To illustrate their take, let's say Wikipedia existed in the early 1990s, Petr Nedved would have a Czechoslovakian flag until 1994 when he appeared for Canada. He would then carry a Canadian flag until 1998 when he appeared for the Czech Republic, at which point it would show a Czech flag. This is probably the easiest way to address this.
Another option would be to eliminate this field and merge the separate international experience infobox (or at least info) into this one or simply leave the international experience infobox as a separate infobox. Otherwise, I fear that no matter what form we choose, this will cause some discussion to arise in future. Since place of birth is listed on the template, all players who do not play internationally can be assumed to be of whatever nationality. If a player considers himself a different nationality, it can be addressed in the body of the article. The international experience infobox can be added to show where he plays internationally and voila the problems that have arisen between users will disappear. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 08:43, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Turns out there is no such thing as the international experience infobox. It is the medals table as shown on Ryan Smyth. Perhaps we can adapt that medal table to allow for finishes that are not top 3 and then it fixes all these problems. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 08:48, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Stray square brackets in template?

It seems Wiki-wide, all instances of the template have 2 closing square brackets displaying directly underneath the image of the player. Is there a reason for this? Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 19:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Yup typo on my part in the above fix. -Djsasso (talk) 20:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Replacing nationality field with national team

Template talk:Infobox Ice Hockey Player/Alternate Per the above discussion, I've created a test example at Template talk:Infobox Ice Hockey Player/Alternate. I've left the flag off, but we could integrate {{Ih}} to automatically link to the player's national team and the appropriate flag if we so choose. I've also moved some of the fields around, since it seems to me that personal data (birth, death, height, weight) and hockey info (teams, draft) should be grouped.

Thoughts? Resolute 17:48, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I like the idea. -DJSasso (talk) 22:33, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
That seems to solve the issue that the two were having. Let's go with this. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 04:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I've no problem with it. GoodDay (talk) 22:26, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Since this would deprecate the Nationality field, and require that editors add the Intl_team parameter to hundreds of articles over time, I've asked for more input at WT:Hockey before implementing. Resolute 22:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

My only concern is what about players who have not played for their national team. I would prefer to see them still have their nationality included in the infobox, as it is rather defining of the player, and the place of birth is not always the best way to determine such a case. While some have said that the nationality is not important enough for the infobox and can be incorporated into the prose of the article, but the same could be said in regards to the national teams. So really, my biggest problem is that it seems to ignore the vast majority of NHL players who never played for their national team, something I don't think we should be doing. Kaiser matias (talk) 23:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
The majority of players will never play for a national team; what do we do for them? — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 02:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Ignore the field. For an overwhelming majority of the players, their birth country and nationality will be the same, so there is no need to duplicate information. For the few that aren't, I am of the group that feels noting this in the lead is sufficient. Ultimately, I don't find nationality to be all that defining for a player who doesn't play internationally. Certainly not any more defining than their ancestry. But, this is why I wanted wider input before deciding on the change. Resolute 03:14, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I like it, but I think the plural on National team is unnecessary. Also the field should be called Ntl_team instead of Intl_team.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 20:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Can do with both changes. I pluralized it for consistency with the "Professional teams" heading, but a side discussion at WT:HOCKEY is also considering limiting the field to just senior team to avoid confusions and controversies with non-national national junior squads. Resolute 20:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, did we ever reach a consensus on this? I noticed that the fervor over this has died off, but I'm curious whether we decided anything yet? Shootmaster 44 (talk) 01:29, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
I think it was decided but as usual the change never made so I have gone ahead and made the change. This will stop all the guessing that goes behind the nationality field. -DJSasso (talk) 13:03, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
So who's going to go through and fix all of the articles? =) Powers T 13:54, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Well I am going to run AWB through it to change those that are obvious fixes. There isn't much to fix persay as the old nationality fields will no longer show up just like many other fields we have deprecated in the past so there will be no actual mistakes, just missing information. They will just slowly be removed over time. As well any less obvious additions of the national teams will be added as articles are edited as is normally done over time. -DJSasso (talk) 14:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
"National Teams" takes up two lines, is there something shorter we could use to make the infobox be more uniform? Also, is there an article that "national team" could be linked to?--Львівське (talk) 21:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
One more thing, but should we be using such long links? Or could we make it so that "CANsr" automatically puts the correct field into the box? Also, what's the stance on flags?--Львівське (talk) 21:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Do not like. Can we use "Int" instead and use flags, ignore all rules, WP:HOCKEY are rebels! —Krm500 (Communicate!) 10:56, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes the flags are now in and the links are shorter. Just type in the country name in the field and the ih template will take care of the link and the flag. As for the field name I am not sure I could change it to Ntl Team. Int can be confusing to some people as can be seen in the discussion below. -DJSasso (talk) 13:09, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
I also added a ntl_team_2 field for players like Petr Nedved who have been on two national senior teams. -DJSasso (talk) 13:09, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Oh and one problem with this is you can only do senior teams. However, based on the comments by Resolute above about the other discussion, I think it was decided to only use senior teams? Or am I mistaken. If someone else can think of a way to code it to allow both then by all means let me know. But I think only listing senior teams is consistent with the fact we only list pro teams in the infobox and leave out junior teams. -DJSasso (talk) 13:50, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
I thought we had decided that Junior was ok, so long as it was at an IIHF tournament (U18, U20 for men, U22 for women, but not U17, Viking Cup etc.). That's why I added those fields as such to the respective player pages. But if we are only going Senior are we still sticking with IIHF only tournaments or does tournaments like the Euro Hockey Tour count? Shootmaster 44 (talk) 04:35, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
I would say stick with IIHF. -DJSasso (talk) 12:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Teams, not clubs

  1. Can the parameter played_for please be edited to say either "Pro teams" or simply "Played for" instead of "Pro clubs"? Right now, anyone who has retired has "clubs" in their infobox, which is ridiculous!
  2. Could the "height" and "weight" fields please be made optional? This data is not available for every notable player, particularly those who are dead!

— Skittleys (talk) 12:26, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure why you don't like it. Pro Clubs is an accurate description of the pro clubs (aka pro teams. remember clubs is the term most common around the world to describe a team. its not just north american readers here) they played for in their career. Height and Weight is available for most every player who has played as its their playing height and weight. You just need to go to a site like hockeydb.com to find it. There are many sources for this information. On the rare case that its not available for a player there are other options we could take, but I have yet to encounter a player that we didn't have the information for. -DJSasso (talk) 13:30, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

triple nationality

I have a player article I'm creating and the individual has triple citizenship.[1] Could someone toss in an extra nationality field so that I can fill out his info box properly?--Crossmr (talk) 23:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

checkY Done JPG-GR (talk) 02:49, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
There is a boo-boo, when I just previewed it, there is an extra set of }} showing up after the third nationality. See Mikhail_Nemirovsky after the Canadian flag.--Crossmr (talk) 03:33, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Think I got it.  Skomorokh  07:35, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Looks good!--Crossmr (talk) 09:06, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand how to use this. I'm trying to edit Peter Šťastný, who played for Czechoslovakia, Canada, and Slovakia. --Pgp688 (talk) 00:25, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I fixed his page. Take a look to see how it works. -DJSasso (talk) 00:33, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank You. --Pgp688 (talk) 01:39, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

THe nationality field has been changed if you see above to only be teams they played internationally for. There are no players as far as I know who have played for 3 national teams. -DJSasso (talk) 12:42, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Since the change hadn't been implemented yet to make it clear that we are no longer using nationality, I have updated the template with the proposed version. The ntl_team field is now in effect and all the nationality fields will no longer appear and are subject to a bot/awb removing them. -DJSasso (talk) 12:57, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't agree with the change, there are plenty of players who play internationally who weren't part of their home country's national teams. They've gone to other countries to play. I agree with Kaiser and Twas that this completely ignores those players. Not only in the NHL but many of the other professional leagues around the world.--Crossmr (talk) 15:18, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Right, but the infobox isn't meant to list every single piece of information about a player. That is what the prose is for. The infobox is only meant to list key aspects. You illustrated the exact reason the change was proposed. The nationality field was only supposed to represent the National team they have played for or would play for if they haven't played for one yet, whereas people kept putting in every country they had citizenship in which is almost impossible to source and was never really the intention of the field (not even getting into the argument that citizenship does not equal nationality). Players who play in another country from that of their birth are not playing "internationally" they are just playing in other countries, playing internationally implies playing for a national team in an international tournament. This is in no way ignoring players, its just removing the POV editing that goes on surrounding players nationalities and replaces it with concrete fact, they either played for a national team or they did not. -DJSasso (talk) 16:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
That depends on your definition of "international". Mikhail Nemirovsky has played in russian leagues, german leagues, western leagues and now the asian league. I don't think he needs to play for Team Russia, Germany or Canada to be considered an "international" player. There is nothing point of view in listing a players citizenship if he has more than one and routinely plays in countries which aren't his birth country.--Crossmr (talk) 01:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
No, but there seems to be a consensus that it's not important enough information to be included in the infobox. If a player has played for an national team (that is, an official nation-authorized team that competes in international tournaments), that's highly relevant information. The player's current nationality is also important information, but not as important to his hockey career and thus is not needed in the infobox. Powers T 02:57, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Not an overwhelming one, and 7 or 8 people commenting on it is hardly enough to consider it a project wide consensus. That affects a lot of articles. In the asian league citizenship is important because each team is limited to a certain number of import players and occasionally they get players from other countries who may have been born in Korea, Japan or China, but now have foreign citizenship which changes their status on the team. Its important in various contexts.--Crossmr (talk) 09:02, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
It might be important to their playing in context to the team/league but it doesn't bare on them as much and as mentioned it can be covered in the prose where those sorts of impacts can be explained. The POV comes from people guessing which citizenship he identifies as. ie you selected Germany as his flag in the asian team page. How do you know that other than assuming it was the last citizenship he got? Did you find an article saying he renounced his other two citizenships and identifies as German? It wasn't just 7-8 people in the hockey project that made a project wide decision. The decision came about because we had multiple non-wp:hockey editors coming to us upset that we did things the way we did. So I would say we are in the 20's or 30's atleast of people who have wanted us to make this change over time. Especially the getting rid of flags. -DJSasso (talk) 12:37, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
I knew that because the trade sheet identified him as German.[2] I only found out about the other citizenships after I googled him and found the elite prospects page which notes he has triple citizenships. Which I linked to in the first post of this thread. There was no guessing. My only guess was trying to figure out why eliteprospects and the asian league trade sheet listed him as german if he has triple citizenship. Since the trade sheet is very recent, I went with german. You've already pointed out that IAR supersedes MOS, so people coming here wanting the flags removed don't really have any bearing on the changing of the field from nationality to national teams. For the actually discussion on changing that, I can see the !vote above, it was 6 people who expressed an opinion, later 2 people objected to it, and I'm now objecting to it as well.--Crossmr (talk) 03:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
But the trade sheet is what someone else considers him. The only reliable source when it comes to nationality is their mouth. This is why we have such a problem with it. -DJSasso (talk) 12:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Uhm no, we have many reliable sources. I was unaware that if a newspaper article, for example, reported his citizenship it would be unreliable. I can't imagine the AL picked a citizenship out of thin air without this guy or his agent doing some paperwork. Regardless, it doesn't change the issue with the field. Anyone who is born in one country and goes to other countries to play in various leagues, is an international player and will have people in multiple countries interested in him. I would suggest that a player who only plays for the national team would probably have fewer international readers interested in him, unless he's playing for a national team in a country he wasn't born in.--Crossmr (talk) 00:18, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Being that the AL is notoriously bad for having incorrect information, yes I do expect that they probably just listed Germany because that was the last place he played. Papers reporting him as having a certain citizenship was never my point, those are reliable. Its whether or not he identifies himself as one and not the others that is the issue, unless a paper quotes him as saying he considers himself German or Russian etc and no longer any of the others there isn't much to go on and such reliable sources for most players are hard to come by as its not something your average paper would report on. -DJSasso (talk) 03:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
That's fine, we can take that on a case by case basis. Trying to ignore the questions and issues with national team vs nationality won't make go away. 4 of the 9 users who have weighed in on it have raised objections. I find it POV to assume only players who have played for their national team should be worthy of having it noted, regardless of how many countries and leagues they play in.--Crossmr (talk) 05:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
But we aren't saying others aren't worthy of having it noted, we are saying that for the vast majority of them it is already noted in their place of birth elsewhere in the infobox and for the few players that have multiple ones that it is also listed in the lead sentence already (or should be). The infobox is just a summary of the most important information. Personally I would rather see both options gone and have nothing relating to nationality in the infobox than to have the clusterfuck that has been the nationality field for the last few years, but national teams was a compromise and a good one I think as there is absolutely no question if a player played on a national senior team or not. This is no different than our decision to leave off junior teams on the infobox which for some hockey fans would be just as important or more important than the nationality of someone who never played for their national team. Lines have to be drawn somewhere since the infobox is only a summary and the vast majority of information is supposed to be found in the article. Also there is only 3 people who expressed concern that I notice and one of which seems to be ok with it now that the flag is showing. -DJSasso (talk) 12:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Twas now also seemed concerned about what to do with players who don't play for a national team. The only response given was to "ignore it", which doesn't seem like much of a solution. I've noticed several times people throw around the terms "many" or "99%", has anyone actually checked if it is really that many players? In terms of what is important, nationality is important for a lot of people, frankly it could be considered more important than which way someone shoots if you want to start ranking info by importance.--Crossmr (talk) 01:19, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
It was you who mentioned important, so I was comparing with something else that was important to some people. What I am saying is that nationality is not defining of a player who hasn't played for their country. Whereas which way someone shoots is very defining of the type of player they are which is a direct impact on their notability. The fact they hold a german passport has not defined their notability in most cases unless they have used it in some way to achieve something notable like play for their national team. -DJSasso (talk) 03:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Amateur players

The template seems skewed toward professional players, although that may be primarily an artifact of the documentation not being clear on how to treat amateurs. To that end, I'm not sure I'm using it right for non-professional players; the dependencies and conditionals caused by the interaction of the various team and league fields are far from clear to me, even after several attempts. Maybe if the documentation was cleared up, it would be easier to figure out how to list players who do not have a professional team affiliation. Powers T 02:57, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I guess this depends on what you consider an amateur player? Other than being an NHL draft pick or winning a major award in the NCAA or Canadian Hockey League, hasn't the hockey project basically decreed that the rest are non-notable at least on that basis alone? Shootmaster 44 (talk) 05:14, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
The specific example is Daniel Spivak, who is still in college, undrafted, and far from assured of a pro career, NHL or otherwise. Yet he's played for a national hockey team, thus meeting the requirements set forth in WP:ATHLETE. Powers T 19:12, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Does Division II World Championship equal highest amateur level of a sport...? —Krm500 (Communicate!) 03:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
I would say that since NHL players (albeit very few) have played at that level, it can be considered to pass. I'd say a senior appearance in an IIHF sanctioned tournament would qualify someone. I'll have to double check, but I think the soccer people (who I figure are most adept at the international sporting guidelines as its intricately weaved into that sport.) allow for anyone who "caps" for their nation in World Cup Qualifying or UEFA Cup qualifiying count. So this would be no different than a soccer player from the Faroe Islands getting a page. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 04:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
On the few currently playing notable male amateur players we tend to just put TBA in their pro-career start. For female amateur and pre-professional hockey players I know I and some other people just use a general bio infobox for them. -DJSasso (talk) 12:32, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
That seems an odd "solution". The general bio infobox doesn't contain hockey-specific fields like "shoots" and national teams. Powers T 19:12, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree. We should probably just make the pro career start field non-manditory. I am not sure how to make a field non-mandatory though. I will see what I can see. -DJSasso (talk) 21:08, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

On a related note, what does it mean when the first listed team in a hockey player's infobox is italicized? Powers T 00:36, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

It's the team they are playing for I believe. -DJSasso (talk) 14:24, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
It means that the player is a prospect in the italicized team's organization, while he is playing for the non-italicized team. As far as the pro-amateur thing, perhaps we could make the "pro career" field optional, then add another optional function called "playing career" for non-pro players. Resolute 14:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
OK, here's the problem. If I fill in just the "team" and "league" fields, the team is italicized in the infobox. If I fill in just the "prospect_team" and "prospect_league" fields, no team shows up in the infobox at all. How do I get just one team to show up, unitalicized? (This is another example of how a professional career is assumed by the infobox; just making "pro career" optional isn't sufficient due to the complicated logic of the infobox. Complicated logic can be a good thing but only if it takes into account all reasonable possibilities. It seems like the infobox was coded by someone who only planned to use it for NHL players.) Powers T 15:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
After reviewing several NHLers' articles, I can't find a single one in which his NHL team isn't italicized. Maybe that line is just always italicized? Powers T 15:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes I believe that is the case. And as for only being intended for pro's yes I believe this template was originally just an NHL player infobox and people just started using it on every hockey player. -DJSasso (talk) 15:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Seems like it could stand to be re-done. If I feel adventurous I may take a stab (in a sandbox, of course) at re-jiggering it to be clear in all applicable cases, though that will likely involve adding new fields and repurposing some old ones. Powers T 15:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
(ec)As well prospect team and prospect league are meant to be for players who have already been drafted and are for the teams they are currently playing on while you still need the team and league for the NHL team they belong to. -DJSasso (talk) 15:44, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Pro career

The endash used to separate the career_start and career_end shouldn't be spaced per MOS:ENDASH and WP:YEAR. Currently the infobox is showing something like 1981 – 1990 where it should be 1981–1990. --JD554 (talk) 13:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Any chance this could be fixed? --JD554 (talk) 07:57, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
A reply would be the minimum courtesy expected. --JD554 (talk) 19:51, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't think anyone noticed your comment in the midst of the below. I can easily fix this. -DJSasso (talk) 19:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
I thought that was probably the case. Thanks, --JD554 (talk) 19:56, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Infobox_ice_hockey_biography/Archive_2&oldid=1074839730"