Jump to content

Template talk:Infobox ice hockey biography/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

Further cleanup work

Firstly, thanks to everyone who participated in the name debate. It's been a long time coming.

Step 2 is to update the template to fix some other problems it has:

  1. It uses improper HTML classes like toccolors which have long been unneeded in infobox templates;
  2. It uses multi-line inputs for several key-value pairs such as lists of teams, which is strongly discouraged;
  3. It uses raw wikitable code, which both bloats the size of the code and makes it difficult for inexpert readers to make trivial changes to without breaking the layout.

As such, I've updated the sandbox to use the {{infobox}} meta-template, and made some changes to the layout.

Advantages to the new system:

  1. All attributes are fully optional and omitting an attribute will never break the template display;
  2. The accessibility problem with multi-row lists has been resolved;
  3. The code is less than half as long and far easier to read.

Some style changes have taken place:

  1. There are no longer faint blue lines to separate each row. This isn't supported by {{infobox}}. However, the line height for each row has been slightly increased, which makes distinguishing rows just as easy IMO.
  2. Some new labels have been added where previously the label was blank on line break-separated fields; this is an accessibility requirement.

Please check the new code out and make sure that it doesn't break on any edge cases (if there's a better example to use on the test cases page which makes use of more attributes then feel free to update it). I wouldn't expect this to be dropped in without comment, so any other input is welcome as well. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:12, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

One problem I can see already is that it uses Shoots for a player that is retired and it should be Shot since they no longer play. So I am guessing you have stripped out all the functionality that switches between retired and active players. I am guessing the same might be the case for former teams and played for fields? I haven't checked those two yet. Is there a way to not make all the attributes fully optional? As we have made some not optional on purpose. -DJSasso (talk) 13:54, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
It appears the former teams list has fully disappeared from active players (so I am guessing its another field you stripped out) as seen on the new test cases I have added. As well the team that drafted the player has disappeared. Both of which are very bad omissions as they are some very key information. -DJSasso (talk) 14:04, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
I am also not sure I like the loss of the blue lines, it causes the readability to be much lower. -DJSasso (talk) 13:59, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
As a personal thought, I also think it looks better with the dividing lines. The shoots/shot issue can be fixed by having the template check against whether the "carrer_end" parameter is in use. But yes, the former teams and draft team attributes must be fixed. Resolute 14:20, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
If you want the blue lines, propose their introduction in {{Infobox}}, which is the emerging standard across Wikipedia. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:23, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
The issue with the blue lines is that they aren't between every parameter so they won't work for every infobox. They are grouping sets of parameters. In the new version it separates all the parameters into their own thing which makes it look like they are all separate. For example currently height and weight are grouped together. All the various draft attributes are grouped together. The teams they play for currently and the former teams are grouped together. This is why trying to shoehorn every infobox into the same standard doesn't always work. Not all information can/should be displayed in the same manor. -DJSasso (talk) 14:31, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Frankly, the dividing lines result in a cleaner look and an ideal separation of grouped concepts that simply does not exist with your proposed version. Oppose change until you correct this on the new template. Your proposal, your job to fix. Resolute 14:46, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Are we really going to have to go through another several weeks of RfC and MoS debate in order to move further towards a standard appearance for this template? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:04, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Maybe you should try working with people instead of trying to fight with them? There are no requirements that everyone do everything exactly the same when it comes to infoboxes. If anything its generally understood that you don't make usability worse just so you can implement some technical trickery in that you want. So please, if you want to make this change, find a way to maintain the usability. -DJSasso (talk) 15:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Only if you choose to make a fight of it. You want to change one template format to another that lacks a functionality. As far as I am concerned, it is reasonable to ask you to ensure that the requested functionality exists in your proposal. That change should be simple enough for you to accomplish, afte which you will have my full support. Resolute 15:12, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Exactly I have no problem with the change, as long as functionality is not lost, currently it is. Its up to the proposer to make sure functionality is not lost if they want to make a change. -DJSasso (talk) 15:15, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
(ec) I think anyone but a fool can see who is ready to work with others, and who wants to fight - the name issue made sure of that. I have expressed no opinion as to whether the blue-line decoration is needed or not; but if it is needed, it's needed across many infoboxes, not just this one, and should be available through {{Infobox}} - if you have a strong case for having it, then I'm sure you can make it there was well as you can do here. We shouldn't loose the many big advantages of converting to that template as enumerated above, just because of yet another aesthetically-based entrenchment. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:23, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
You are confusing aesthetics with usability. They are two different things. If you want to setup a standard for infoboxes, its your job to make sure that it takes into account all the needs of all infoboxes. Currently I don't see many big advantages that would outweigh the loss of usability for the majority of our readers. -DJSasso (talk) 15:27, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Now you're insinuating that {{Infobox}} has poor usability. Can you provide evidence to substantiate that opinion? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:31, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
No, I am stating that {{infobox}} lacks some usability that this infobox has. Nowhere did I say it had poor usability. -DJSasso (talk) 15:33, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
I would also note that other templates also use such dividing lines. {{Infobox military person}} for one, albeit only one line. It would make sense, if you wish to establish this as a standard, to ensure that the new standard is capable. Resolute 15:17, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Pending niggle-fixes aside, that's much better. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:24, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
"Anyone but a fool" C'mon, Andy, don't be a hypocrite. You can't complain in the section below about ad hominem attacks while resorting to one yourself here. As to the rest of your comment above, I will reiterate what I said to Chris: You desire to change the template coding. I am fine with that, as long as it retains the functionality of this template coding. As you and Chris are pushing the change, the onus is on you to ensure that your change matches our needs and desires. I am not going to do your work for you. When you do adress my concerns, however, you will have my full support in making such changes. Resolute 15:56, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
And that goes for me as well. I am fine with switching over once these concerns are addressed. -DJSasso (talk) 15:58, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Also as a question, does a change to {{Infobox}} even need to be made? Is there no reason why the html code could not simply be added into the proposed new coding for our infobox? Resolute 16:09, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Replies

Okay folks:

  1. The shot/caught thing was an oversight. I've now fixed that.
  2. The former clubs list not appearing was a bug introduced when Andy edit conflicted with me in this revision. This should also now be fixed.

The blue lines thing is another matter. {{Infobox}} doesn't support per-row styling; this would be fairly trivial to add to the basic code by adding a rowstyle attribute to {{infobox/row}}, but to the best of my knowledge it was specifically decided against. Nor can the lines be hacked into the template code. So it's basically not possible to accommodate that request. When it comes down to it, this is another area in which this infobox arbitrarily deviates from the styling used in other templates of this type, and it's a case of deciding whether the value there is worth that deviation. I think the advantages of moving to {{infobox}} more than make up for the alleged loss of clarity here (let's once again point out that the unbordered style is vastly prevalent on contemporary infoboxes and rarely is the lack of dividers argued to impact readability), but I'm prepared to allow others to have their say. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

"When it comes down to it, this is another area in which this infobox arbitrarily deviates from the styling used in other templates of this type" - Except that it is used in {{Infobox military person}} (example), {{Infobox writer}} (example), {{Infobox vice-regal}} (example), {{Infobox officeholder}} - and 52 templates based off of it - (example), among others. Off these five examples alone, that encompasses easily ten thousand articles. Certainly our template uses the dividing line more than most, but I believe it is fair to say that these stylistic dividing lines enjoy fairly wide use, and their use should be enabled in {{infobox}}. Resolute 14:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
None of the examples provided use {{infobox}}, but as they're transitioned to it it's likely that they'd lose the dividers as well (at least in the case of {{infobox writer}} and {{infobox officeholder}}; the military box uses a separate set of conventions which aren't likely to be adopted outside the military domain and predate {{infobox}}, while {{infobox vice-regal}} is an obscurity which is almost certainly going to end up being merged somewhere else in the long run). Furthermore, when I said "of its type" I was specifically referring to the modern {{infobox}}-based sportsperson templates such as {{infobox golfer}}, {{infobox tennis biography}}, {{infobox athlete}}, {{infobox football biography 2}} and the like, which all very closely match the structure and contents of this template. Furthermore, as you said, even templates which do use dividers use them only sparingly, while this template currently employs them on almost every row. Row headers would be a far better way of separating different sections than lines if that were decided to be necessary (as is employed on my examples), but not on every one or two rows. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
I am aware that none of my examples use Infobox, since, obviously, it does not have this functionality. My point is, there are about 60 templates listed (that I checked) that use this line. This is an indication that the infobox meta-template should be adapted to include functionality for such dividing lines. It seems to me that someone with knowledge of the syntax required for the coding could add this option, at which point you could very easily convert some of the most used infobox templates on Wikipedia with no fuss whatsoever. Resolute 15:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
The question remains as to whether that is actually necessary. Comparable biographies on sportspersons do without the dividers just fine right now. The dividers have existed in this template since June 2006, but were never actually discussed (compare to the title debate, which existed in some form even as far back as that). I'm open to considering improvements to {{infobox}}, but the general consensus in the development of that template seems to be that allowing infinite customisation is not an improvement. Right now, the argument for retaining the dividers is that it aids in readability, but they are used arbitrarily throughout (not on every row, but seemingly as it pleased whoever last edited the template). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:39, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
I am not 100% certain for this particular situation as I haven't looked through the archives, but in general most discussion involving this template has always gone on at the wikiproject page which is why you don't see it anywhere here. But they are not on every line because they are grouping single topics together. If you notice, physical attributes are grouped to together (height/weight), teams they played for currently and previously are grouped together, and then the various information reguarding their draft/career status are grouped together. Its not random at all but grouping like topics together for quicker and easier access. -DJSasso (talk) 17:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Right, but is it necessary to have so many of them? the various biography boxes I linked to use four or five headers at most to sub-divide the material by context and the result is no less readable IMO. The Gretzky example on the test cases page uses seven dividers for far less information. Removing the dividers and then adding in new contextual headers would work just as well for me. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:16, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Personally, I see contextual headers as unnecessary bloat. I like the idea of a simple dividing line better. Resolute 17:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
And I don't think something as simple as a difference in aesthetic opinions, which is what that seems to boil down to, is important enough to block the improvements made in the sandbox. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
I think you will find there is a difference of opinion on if its just aethetics. Calling it aethetics would be just saying they are there to pretty up the infobox, but they are actually serving a purpose on making the sections easier to read and absorb, which would be a usability and accessability issue. -DJSasso (talk) 18:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
IMO, the infobox has been fine as is for the last five years. It will be fine for a short time longer until this issue is addressed. Resolute 19:07, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Is anything necessary, Chris? It should already be obvious that I/we don't decide our actions by what other people do, and you've already admitted that it would be fairly simple to adapt the template to accomodate this. I also failed to locate a discussion that decided against using such dividing lines - though I only looked at section headings of the template's talk page. Resolute 23:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
I've had a look myself and it may be that I recall it from some other discussion; for that I apologise. Nevertheless, given the previous history of the discussion regarding this template I am reluctant to agree that the most appropriate action here would be to revolve the room, rather than the lightbulb. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Replies (2)

DJSasso: the issue of whether separating the various components of the infobox into sections is a question of semantics, it's true, but it's been addressed by pointing out that there is a more accessible, obvious and well-used (by similar templates) way of doing so, by named section headers. The appeal to aethetics comes in rejecting that solution because one doesn't like how it makes the box look.

Resolute: I'd be more sympathetic to the argument that the template is "just fine as it is" if it hadn't been repeatedly used as a veto the last time someone proposed constructive changes to the template. Nor is the "so go change {{infobox}}" argument compelling when the only argument given against named headers so far is "I think they clutter the box up". If a demonstration is needed of how named headers would still split the sections without causing undue clutter I'll happily edit the sandbox to demonstrate. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

One has only to go see the much maligned NFL and MLB infoboxes to see demonstrations, and no thanks, I do not favour that and I suspect you would find that consensus is against such a look if you asked at WT:HOCKEY. Frankly, you are looking for the easy way out by trying to enforce one stylistic preference because the maintainers of {{Infobox}} failed to consider alternate styles could also be preferred. I've pointed out that at least 60 templates use these lines to varying degrees. That alone is a compelling reason to find a way to integrate the lines into Infobox. Rather than fight us on it, why don't you modify that template to allow for them? At that point, you can almost certainly convert those 60 templates with little or no fuss, as the changes would no longer be design changes but simple code optimization. Resolute 20:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Part of standardisation is standardising design; thereby causing less confusion for our readers; and fewer opportunities for debates about aesthetics in future. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
I give our readers more credit than that, and I am tired of going in circles. When you are willing to consider that not everyone does things the way you want and are ready to discuss adapting your template to our wishes, let me know. Until then, my opposition to the changes stands. Resolute 22:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Once again you misrepresent me. I've already told you that "I have expressed no opinion as to whether the blue-line decoration is needed or not; but if it is needed, it's needed across many infoboxes, not just this one, and should be available through {{Infobox}} - if you have a strong case for having it, then I'm sure you can make it there was well as you can do here". You have the opportunity to ensure that your wishes are the standard across Wikipedia. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:45, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
You are missing the point of what he is saying. He is saying that if people are going to try and switch all the templates to {{infobox}} its up to them to make sure it can do what many other infoboxes already do. In otherwords you want to make something a standard you do the work to make sure your new standard has all the widely used features in it. Resolute has shown that 60 infoboxes use these lines which mean that its widely used and somewhat of a defacto standard that they can be used. Therefore its up to the people wanting to establish a standard to make sure its there. You don't go up to a group of people and say we want to switch your infobox to this cause we want to create a standard but you will lose all these features and if you want to keep them you must go to this other page and argue your case. Instead what you do is make sure your template has those features already and then you go up to them and say hey we have this new standard that will optimize your code and not change the usability or features at all. Because I can guarantee when you work from that angle you will have more people agree with you. -DJSasso (talk) 22:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for trying to help; but I'm very aware of what he's saying. However the fact that he and you believe it to be the case does not make it so. In fact, if it were true it would be logically impossible to achieve. Nor is anyone saying what you say above. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
(ec) Man, you don't get it. I don't care that there are little differences between various infoboxes and I have no desire to create a "standard" that encompasses every infobox. I am fine without a cookie cutter design. I have no problems with our current infobox - both in style and coding - and as such I see no reason to go beg to have a change made to a different template so that I can keep what works for us. If {{Infobox}} can't do what we want, then I see no reason to use it. If you wish to optimize the existing code of this template within the confines of what we desire, great. If you wish to modify Infobox so that it is capable of what we desire, great. But the entire concept of "I want to take something away and leave it to you to go beg to have it back" is not going to fly. It is your desire to make a change, not mine. It is therefore your responsibility to make certain your desired change is capable. And given that several dozen infobox templates use these lines, I suspect you would get farther, faster by adapting to the needs and wishes of the community rather than trying to bend the community to your will. Resolute 23:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I get it - the fact that you think I'm asking you to "beg" is very illuminative. And once again you misrepresent me. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:07, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Spare me. You're the one who keeps telling me to go press my case elsewhere when I have no need. {{Infobox}} does not do what we wish, and until it does, then it is not anything I am willing to entertain. Wikipedia was not built on the idea that there is only one solution to a problem. Resolute 23:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Resolute: The "much maligned NFL and MLB infoboxes" are that way because, surprise surprise, they suffer from exactly the same historic problems as this template has: namely, that there are core groups of editors strongly opposed to standardisation present in any discussion of them, resulting in any debates going round in circles based on personal opinion. I can tell you that these problems happen far less on standard templates pretty much regardless of what the subject matter is, and that one a template has been standardised the calls to make styling changes pretty much disappear. That you have "no problems" with the current code (which still has serious accessibility problems, over and above a pretty lame quibble with the separators) doesn't suggest that you're reading much of the arguments in favour of the changes before reflexively pushing back on them. That's no surprise considering the history of the title debate, but nor is it a blocker on change.
DJSasso: You're throwing out mischaracterisations here. Firstly, {{infobox}} is not "an attempt at a standard" - it's by far the most commonly used base for infobox templates at the present time, especially across biographies. The presence of counterexamples would only be compelling if {{infobox}} had been rejected in those cases, whereas this is not true of any template that I'm aware of at this time; it simply hasn't been gotten around to yet. It is most certainly not a case that using row borders as separators is a "defacto standard" [sic] because there happen to be templates using them. And again, I'd be far more receptive to arguments about "losing features" if I hadn't in fact bent over backwards to be fully backwards compatible only to fall down because the same people who opposed a title for the box out of personal preference have put their feet down over row separators. There's a joke here about how many Wikipedians it takes to change a lightbulb, I'm sure.
Anyway, this is back to circular arguing again. This needs more than the same handful of editors bickering with each other if it's to move forward. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, I just asked a simple question about it on the section above about the feasability of changing things. I'm willing to work with you, but you have to be willing to work with me. Believe me, I do see advantages in simplifying this template's code, and if you go push for the meta-template to be adapted to allow for this (yes, even if it is just a stylistic preference), then I'll support you on it. And to be fair, you're kind of getting caught up in the blowback of Andy's incredible arrogance in stating it's my job to go beg (yes, Andy, beg) for a feature that we already have presently. I don't care how trivial one considers the issue to be, several weeks of "you must do things my way" is going to wear on a person's patience, and I didn't even care about the fucking name issue. Resolute 23:59, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Resolute sums up what I feel quite well. I have been more than willing to work with you and have agreed to all of your changes except one. While you haven't exactly been willing to work with us beyond telling us how we have to do things. Working together goes both ways. -DJSasso (talk) 00:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I haven't been making demands. If I'd been making editprotected requests then I could see the point, but I'm not. I'm happy to wait for others to have a say. The one sticking point is still something where I feel that {{infobox}} already provides a superior solution, and I'm disinclined to discard it in favour of adding rather a large chunk (pretty simple, but nevertheless still fairly large in cumulation) of code to the meta-template for the sake of something which I feel is counter to the principles of the standardisation drive in question. But I'm disengaging for now until we've got more input. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
When you get down to it, I think we're both in agreement that {{Infobox}} would work. All I am asking is for a simple stylistic option. Honestly though, I'd suggest taking your proposed changes to a clean thread at WT:HOCKEY. This discussion has already trainwrecked, and taking the issue to a clean venue where the interested editors already are may help. Resolute 00:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Sub-headings for teams

Chris, could you also take into account the issue of sub-headings in the "teams" section, as detailed below, please? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Sub-headings don't really make sense to me here. The list is essentially freeform, and isn't in key-value format. I'd rather not complicate things too much at this time. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:45, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The current list (<br /> separated), labelled "Pro clubs", on Mike Sillinger is:

NHL
New York Islanders
Nashville Predators
St. Louis Blues
Phoenix Coyotes
Columbus Blue Jackets
Ottawa Senators
Florida Panthers
Tampa Bay Lightning
Philadelphia Flyers
Vancouver Canucks
Mighty Ducks of Anaheim
Detroit Red Wings
AHL
Bridgeport Sound Tigers
Adirondack Red Wings
AUS
EC Wien

None of NHL, AHL, or AUS, are "Pro clubs". Some method of deaing with this needs to be found, whether it's sub-headings, separate table rows, or perhaps nested lists:

or some other method. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

It may not even be necessary. I generally don't even divide entries by league. (i.e.: Theoren Fleury, where I simply listed the top-level clubs he played for in chronological order). I've certainly no objection to simply dumping the league headers, though that would be something to take to WT:HOCKEY for wider discussion. Resolute 00:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. My personal preference would be for a proper list of year-team pairs as used on other team sports, but this would be a big step (not to mention a huge amount of additional work) for the hockey project. It's certainly possible to prepare for such an eventuality in the code now and allow for gradual migration, but the adoption of such a format is entirely up to the editors who are going to be rolling it out. For a simple list of teams, a single list may only be barely functional but it isn't broken. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
It was you (Resolute) who said below "Subheadings are fairly common on our articles of players who played in multiple top-level leagues". If it's the case that they're common, but not needed (indeed, are harmful), then the template documentation needs to be changed to deprecate them. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 00:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
And that would be something that would need to be brought to WT:HOCKEY as the headers are relatively new within the last year or two and was a concious decision to begin adding them. -DJSasso (talk) 15:10, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm not convinced that they are harmful, but I also am not convinced that they are useful. As I said, I've no problem with deprecating this use. Resolute 15:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Template: Unbulleted list

My change to the documentation, suggesting the use of {{Unbulleted list}} (which applies the correct HTML list markup) for lists, instead of separating items with line breaks, was just reverted with an edit summary of:

revert: this addition, its currently being objected to on village pump and it will cause load times to be longer and make the infobox more complicated to use. not necessary in the least.)

Where is this discussion on VP? I have looked, and can find none. The claim about load times seems false (the increase, if any, would be imperceptibly small and is no reason not to use a template); and the complaint about complexity is also unsubstantiated and unsupportable. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:53, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

The one where you removed the reference as part of adding this template. You were having it yesterday, so don't tell me you forget already. It is easily supported and substantiated, a user who has never used the wiki is more likely to know that a br tag causes a line return than them having to figure out how to add a template. BR tags are just as correct HTML markup as are list tags. -DJSasso (talk) 14:57, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
I took part in no such discussion about the merits of this template If you think otherwise, please provide a link. Your comments about <br /> do not support your claims about my change to the documentation, where a copyable example was given. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:07, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
A new user who has clicked the edit button for the first time isn't going to come here and read the documentation, they are going to to try and edit the infobox right away. Secondly your template also only has a low maximum number of items it can list which are far exceeded in many cases. If you are going to deny that people complained about your addition of this template yesterday then I will let you live in your own fantasy world. We all know you say whatever you want anyways, despite the reality. -DJSasso (talk) 15:11, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps you're right about new users not reading the documentation; in which case, thy won't be affected by the change to it, and your objection must be moot. Extra lines can be added to {{Unbulletted list}} if required; please provide an example of an instance with a high number of entries - the higher the number if entries, the more important it is that proper HTML list mark-up is used. As to your ad hominem personal attack; I'll simply note that you have failed to prove a diff to substantiate your allegation. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits
Fine if you want to force me into embarrassing you then here is a link Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Subsection to the section where a number of people complained about your adding the unbulletted list to brussels resulting in the loss of usability and information for the reader. -DJSasso (talk) 15:38, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm not in the least embarrassed by your fallacious claim; there is nothing in that discussion about the merits of {{Unbulleted list}} and it is in no way relevant to the change being discussed here Once again, if you believe otherwise, please provide a specific diff. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:42, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
No of course it doesn't *rolls eyes*...here is one quote from that discussion "This change of yours may make Brussels emit correct metadata, but it makes the page for readers less useful, and I consider it a step into the wrong direction. I want to have an identifier in the infobox telling me what language that name variant is. I want to be allowed to have references in infoboxes, without requiring separate template parameters or some such." which is a direct reference to your adding this template causing the infobox to lose its reference. And another "So, let me get this straight: the only reason Andy edited the Brussels article like he did was to be able to use the infobox for microformats, even if that means that we have now a worse layout and a loss of info (reference) in the infobox?" -DJSasso (talk) 15:51, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Like I said: nothing in that discussion about the merits of {{Unbulleted list}}. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:36, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Um, yes. It created "a worse layout"[1], like I said in that discussion and said more explicitly in my edit summary ("Undo: "Unbulleted list" in infobox looks a lot worse"[2]). Since you replied to my comment and re-edited after my revert, you should have been well aware that I was discussing the merits of "unbulleted list". In the case of Brussels, it resulted in a clearly inferior layout. Fram (talk) 07:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
That's a symptom of the construction of the parent infobox, not {{Unbulleted list}} (and thus irrelevant to this debate). Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Oh yes, obviously, when you create a new template that makes a long standing and widely used infobox looks worse than it did before, that's a problem for the infobox, not for the new template... Fram (talk) 11:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Also, while its true that "BR tags are just as correct HTML markup as are list tags", it is not true that they are the correct tags for marking up lists. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:39, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Right the change the suggestion from br to li tags....but again people are more likely to know how to use br than li. Sometimes you need to bend standards to make things easier for the user. There is no need to be unnecessarily complex when you don't have to be. Our goal here is to be the most easy to use for the user while getting out all the relevant information. We do not need to be the most rigid standards followers there can be, which is why the wiki embraces things such as ignore all rules. So that people understand that you should do what makes the wiki better, not what some arbitrary standard says you should do. -DJSasso (talk) 15:47, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
The template means that no editor need ever use <li>...</li>;and all it does is apply them and the necessary wrapping <ul>...</ul> tag pair thereby making life simpler for editors: so once again your objection is moot. The HTML specifications are not "arbitrary". Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:34, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
As a question, what is wrong with using <br /> tags? Resolute 15:48, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
They're intended for line breaks. For lists, <li>...</li> are provided. See the HTML specifications for further information. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:34, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Using list markup for lists improves accessibility for users using browsers such as screen readers, and perhaps the most influential blind reader of all, Google's search bot. Isaac Lin (talk) 21:43, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough. I've no issue with it. I'll try to remember this template. Resolute 00:57, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. Does anyone other than DJSasso object to restoring the change? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
If you want to implement it, please make sure there is room for atleast 20 parameters as numerous players get into the teens in terms of number of teams. -DJSasso (talk) 19:42, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
As I asked you above, please provide an example. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
20 would be beyond eve the most extreme examples, but would provide plenty of space for the really oddball case. Such as: Mike Sillinger (18 entries), Michel Petit, J. J. Daigneault and Jim Dowd (ice hockey) (10 each). Resolute 21:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. The interesting thing about Mike Sillinger is that some of the 18 items are sub-headings (NHL, AHL, AUS) and the most he has under any of those is 12. The issue of sub-headings (or however they should be divided up) needs to be dealt with as part of the conversion to {{Infobox}}. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Subheadings are fairly common on our articles of players who played in multiple top-level leagues. Resolute 21:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Indeed; but the method of showing them in Mike Sillinger is confusing, barely accessible and semantically weak. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

{{Unbulleted list}} now caters for up to 30 (thirty) entries. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:24, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

weight measurements

I've just come across this template, which seemingly gratuitously links lb 87 kg; 13 st 10 lb (see example). These common weight measurements are well known, and in any even are hardly germane to the subjects in question. I propose that these links be disabled. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 16:08, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I've just noticed this in Ohconfucius's contribs. It's similar to issues I've raised at other templates. I cannot see one good reason for linking these common abbreviations; presumably readers in metric jurisdictions know what "kg" means, and Americans know what "lb" means. It's particularly vexing that the articles themselves go down rabbit holes. Conversion can't be at issue, since the conversion is presented on the spot at the anchor article. Bizarre. Tony (talk) 16:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
PS The copyright tag for the example pic can't possibly be right, can it? I suspect it should be deleted. Tony (talk) 16:18, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
I believe they are set to be disabled on the new version of the infobox which is currently being discussed which can be seen on the testcases page. That being said I had no idea what st was until I clicked the link on one of these boxes... -DJSasso (talk) 17:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
"Stone" is obsolescent: Americans never seem to use it, and the imperial system is on the way out in the UK. I doubt if Liberia and Burma use it. Tony (talk) 15:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Can we steal the French wikipedia name design

Can we?? It's nice! I mean the way they do the name in the infobox. Just look here [3]. Ours is so plain. So who here would like us to steal it.--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 02:07, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd rather not, personally. Both the background shading and the hockey player icon decoration serve no purpose other than to draw the reader's eyes away from the article. Resolute 02:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Oh come on, the hockey infobox is ugly. Just look at the mlb infobox. Now that's a nice infobox. It's full of colour. This won't draw readers away. This is about making the articles look better. The same way we put pictures in articles. --Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 02:12, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I can only speak for myself, but I think the MLB infobox is garbage. Too busy and too distracting. IMNSHO, the purpose of an infobox is to impart key information, not to dazzle people with colour and icons. I am a bit old fashioned in this regard, however. Resolute 02:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but if the infobox looks better it'll attract more readers. For example, go to a library where the references are and look for the encyclopedias, which one do most people take. Every time I go there it's the World Book. While, Compton (which is better written) is alway's on the selves. That's because people go for World Book because it's all nicely decorated, while Compton is just a plain blue cover. This is the same thing here. If we can make wikipedia look better more people will read the articles.--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 09:26, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
To be honest, I think the hockey infobox is one of the best looking infoboxes on the wiki. Its not garish and gaudy like the NFL or MLB infoboxes. Gets across the important information without including every tidbit of trivia possible. Design is subjective, what looks good to one person may look disasterously bad to another. This is why wikipedia aims to try and have as little decoration as possible. For every person that may come because it looks good, we may lose someone because it looks bad. -DJSasso (talk) 11:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Rather than suggesting ways to change or improve the ice hockey infobox, please consider generic ways to improve all infoboxes on Wikipedia. The paper encyclopedias mentioned above do not use different styles for different topics; and neither should we. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
You missed my point. My Point was that the cover of World Book is far more appealing than Compton's. Second, this isn't a paper encyclopedia. Paper encyclopedia don't have infobox, so should we remove them. Come on, what you are saying makes no sense on the context in which you are talking about. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia. Most people don't ever reach the main page because they search for what they are looking for on the search page and leave. Each article is like it's one little webpage. This is not like a normal encyclopaedia. Making all the infoboxes the same would be dull. Each infobox should be unique so it goes with the topic. I would never ask this Infobox to look like the MLB one, since we are talking about two different subjects. --Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 11:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't believe I missed your point at all; indeed, I think you missed mine. Consistency of design aids our readers; localised design variance, with no overall theme, does not. Nowhere did I say all infoboxes should look the same. Your claim that "each article is like it's one little webpage [sic]" is unfounded, and contradicted by many things: such as our MoS, wikilinking, navboxes, etc. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:20, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I prefer the "boring" look that the infobox has right now. This hockey infobox looks better than the MLB one IMO; I also prefer the slightly smaller font size in this one, especially with so much information packed in there in most articles. Gary King (talk) 06:02, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
One key point is that the French WP has standardised on that design, while we haven't. I've certainly seen calls to use the French system over here as a standard, but unless that happens we shouldn't adopt it piecemeal. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

NBA template?

The template for NBA players looks much more professional than the template for the NHL. Could we somehow redesign the NHL's to make it look like the NBA's? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hockeychris66 (talk • contribs) 16:31, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

This has been discussed a few times for various sports. Most hockey editors feel ours is the more professional looking, and lacks the problems such as overuse of colour and having too much information in the infobox, like the NBA one has. -DJSasso (talk) 16:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
It'll get there eventually. For the time being, the differences are mostly minor aesthetic quibbles and the cost-benefit ratio in resolving that is rather steep. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 09:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Indeed. It is not easy convincing the other sporting projects that we are right.  ;) Personally, I think the bar headers make the NBA infobox look amateurish myself while the giant awards section bloats it. I like our simple dividing lines better, and it is a shame that the code cannot be optimized without their loss because the relevant project lacks the will to respond to the wishes of the content contributors. I'd rather lose the lines altogether than add those bar headers in their place. Resolute 13:56, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
I understand that the NBA template uses way too much colour and information in their infobox, but perhaps if there was one colour bar that showed the player's jersey number and team name, there would be less confusion about which team a player plays for, especially when it is an old picture of a player who has recently switched teams. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris66ftw (talk • contribs) 20:52, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Forget the color. The NHL infobox is missing critical information about the playe rin question. When you look at a player, there are some things you want to know immediately. I think the "career highlights" section from the NBA and NFL player infobox should be copied. When I look at Wayne Gretsky's page, the fact that he won 4 stanley cups is one of his greatest accomplishments, yet is absent from the infobox. As is the fact that he scored 894 points, yet that is absent as well.
Of lesser importance, but would also be nice, is the years the player played for each team. Simply a list of teams is not very helpful.
I personally agree with the color layout of the NHL infobox, but this infobox is lacking very important information. littlebum2002 15:21, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
I also like the lines vs. the bar headers. And yes, the MLB career highlights section IS too long, but it is better than nothing. perhaps we can agree on a list of 5-10 achievments that would be proper for every player. littlebum2002 15:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree on the infobox needing a list of Stanley Cup wins. This is definitely information that should be highlighted. Piemann16 (talk) 21:34, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I was looking around, and if we simply added the Stanley Cups section that is currently included in the ice hockey team infobox, I think that would look really nice in the player infobox also. Piemann16 (talk) 16:27, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm still not a fan, personally. Cup wins would go into the lead section no doubt, but I am not a believer in feature creep on the infobox. Once you add one accolade, others will follow. Simpler is better, imnsho. Resolute 16:33, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Which is actually a problem that the MLB project is currently facing and have been arguing about lately. Also this box is used across many leagues so the argument would then be to start adding championships from other leagues. -DJSasso (talk) 16:50, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Linking of common units

This template is causing common units such as pounds and kilograms to be linked. This seems to me to be excessive. Note that wp:link says:

  • "Units of measurement which are common only in some parts of the English-speaking world need not be linked if they are accompanied by a conversion to units common in the rest of it, as in 18 °C (64 °F), as almost all readers of the English Wikipedia would be able to understand at least one of the two measures."

Please can we modify the template to remove '|lk=on' so that the units are not linked? Regards Lightmouse (talk) 12:51, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I think I have fixed it, will have to wait for the job queue to do its thing but this should be fixed. -DJSasso (talk) 13:39, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Lightmouse (talk) 15:33, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Italics for current and former teams

In looking at this infobox, I noticed that the player's current team is italicized, but former teams are not. However in the labels, "F. teams" is partially italicized. (Example here: Ed Jovanovski) Obviously both team sections shouldn't be in italics, but shouldn't the italics pair up together with the label? Does the "F" for Former even need italics? If yes, then I suggest the former teams should be in italics too. If there are reasons for this current "opposite" setup, that's ok, but I just wonder why the italics aren't parallel in the label and team columns. Thanks. --Mtjaws (talk) 21:38, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Possible error in weight conversion

I was just looking at this page Kārlis Skrastiņš and noticed an error in weight in stones. I was going to correct the error but it seems only the weight pounds is entered and it is then converted. I have looked at a few other pages using the same infobox and the stone weight appears to be correct in those. What code is used for the convesrion? For teh record 210lb is most certainly 15st, not the 14st displayed. --LiamE (talk) 22:16, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

This template uses {{convert}}. In this case {{convert|210|lb|kg stlb|abbr=on}} which results in 210 lb (95 kg; 14 st 0 lb). I will bring up the issue there and/or possibly fix it myself. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:20, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Note that not all the conversions to stones in that template are broken, since {{convert|210|lb|st|abbr=on}} results in 210 lb (15 st). But, {{convert|210|lb|stlb|abbr=on}} results in 210 lb (14 st 0 lb), so this should help isolate the problem. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:23, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
It appears to be a rounding bug that only occurs for multiples of 15 stone. Hopefully we will find a fix soon. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:07, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
I made a change to {{convert}}, which appears to have fixed the bug and hopefully hasn't created new problems. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:34, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Nice one. Thanks for your efforts to locate error that and sort it out so quickly. --LiamE (talk) 10:20, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Adding squad numbers to the template

Throwing it out there---would it make sense to add a parameter to the template to allow a player's jersey number to be added to the template (for active players only)? --AEMoreira042281 (talk) 15:55, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Personally I think its pretty trivial to include and changes often enough as to not be worth mentioning. I think there has been a discussion on this in the past if you look in the ice hockey project archives it might help for seeing what others thought previously as well. -DJSasso (talk) 16:05, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit

Change Ntl. team tp National team there is enough space Gnevin (talk) 13:59, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

 Done -DJSasso (talk) 16:01, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Cheers Gnevin (talk) 16:15, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Also F. teams to Former teams Gnevin (talk) 16:36, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

 Done any longer and it would probably have been too long but looks like it fit. Sort of surprised we had it short form if it was short enough. But it may be that we changed the career one awhile back and it ended up longer than what was there before. Either way both are changed. -DJSasso (talk) 17:15, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Youth team

Given that at least Eliteprospects often mentions the player's youth teams, is it worth adding a parameter to the template for youth team? HeyMid (contribs) 23:12, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Not really infoboxes are for adding the most important info as briefly as possible. If we started to list youth teams which in North America can become a pretty long list we would flood the infobox. This sort of information is probably best handled in the prose of the article itself if it is noteworthy. -DJSasso (talk) 13:02, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

KHL draft parameter?

Given that the Kontinental Hockey League is ranked as Europe's top ice hockey league, is it worth adding a parameter in the template for the KHL draft? The format of the link should be "[year] KHL Junior Draft". HeyMid (contribs) 20:51, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Being drafted by the KHL right now is a bit of a joke. There don't seem to be an standard rules followed for who is eligible and who isn't etc. Its notable enough to be in the prose of the article but I wouldn't put it in the infobox. But that is just my opinion. -DJSasso (talk) 17:20, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

The "shoots" parameter

What about creating a switch template for the "shoots" parameter to automatically write "left" if the value is "L", and "right" if the value is "R"? This may be effective as sites like Eliteprospects only say "R" and "L". HeyMid (contribs) 18:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Junior Team

I am curious whether adding a player's "last amateur club" like hockey cards used to list would be worthwhile. I'm not sure what would go here specifically for Europeans. But for North Americans this could be a spot where their CHL/NCAA teams would go. The "former teams" field seems to be restricted to professional teams, so by adding this field it would be a place to add CHL/NCAA teams. Either that or adding a field for the team they were drafted from might be an idea. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 23:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. Powers T 17:02, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
I have been thinking about this since I saw you post it and have been going back and forth on it. While its nice to have that information, I think it would start to lead to a situation of putting too much information in the infobox. I am not sure how important it is to have all their junior teams in the infobox since most of the time a players time on various junior teams are not a notable part of their career. However a drafted from field might be the best option as it restricts it to their last (or close to last) junior team and avoids the problem where people will add all kinds of low level junior teams. -DJSasso (talk) 17:55, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
The college or major junior team is very often the team in which the player matured and learned the most important aspects of the game; coaches stay at those teams so long that they develop entire generations of players and institute a distinct style of play. Some players -- not all, admittedly -- can be accurately characterized in part by simply saying what college they attended. And from a non-Wikipedia point of view, college identity has been a major part of pro football and basketball for many, many years (even on the Super Bowl broadcast, the players' colleges are prominently called out as the most important part of the players' bios after their names); placing a similar emphasis on hockey players' origins can only help grow the game. Powers T 18:46, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Like I said a drafted from would work for some of the reasons you say and would likely be the CHL/NCAA team although colleges aren't regarded in the same way in hockey. However it is often noted if a players was a college player or major junior player or a euro player for the same reasons the other sports differentiate between specific schools. But a blanket junior param like we have for the former teams currently, will start including Junior A teams and bellow very quickly as fans of particular teams want to emphasis a players time on their team. -DJSasso (talk) 18:54, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
I kind of like the idea of a "drafted from" parameter as part of the draft area of the infobox. More often than not, that is the team a junior player will have spent the most time with, and it is also the one piece of information regarding a player's junior career that is most often included, especially in draft lists. Resolute 20:10, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Hold on, though... I'm not sure "Drafted from" is the best terminology. Many players are drafted before they get to college, so strictly speaking they weren't "drafted from" the university -- but surely the university in such a case is more important to list than whatever USHL team they were on at the time? Powers T 21:13, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
You could put a switch in like college=yes to change the label for the param from drafted from to graduated from or some other wording that is appropriate. Or alternately you could have a drafted from param and a separate college param like we do for "former teams" & "played for". -DJSasso (talk) 23:49, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
The only problem with adding the college param separate from any other param is that you will get non-hockey related info in that field. I noticed this on Jeff Piercy (a CFL football player)'s page. The football info box distiguishes between college and CIS and since Jeff Piercy went to Oxford after he retired someone added that in. So I could see the same with hockey players who retire and then attend University. The other thing is you will see players like Mike Danton having Saint Mary's Huskies added to his college slot, even though that happened much later and isn't a case of he was drafted from the USHL and went to Saint Mary's University immediately after. But if we are ok with this happening, then I am all for adding the college param in addition to the other param.Shootmaster 44 (talk) 15:01, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
I was just going to ask about that latter issue. I changed Chris Taylor (ice hockey) to reflect his retired status and his former teams stopped displaying. I just discovered the played_for parameter and fixed it, but is there a reason we can't use former_teams for both purposes? Powers T 02:18, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
We could probably with a switch now, not sure that we could when the box was created originally. The reasoning from previously for it is that it changes the label of the data to say Played for instead of Former teams which is better wording for a retired player. And we used to have a restriction that former teams were only the former teams in the same league the player was currently playing in and played for was for when they retired and was every pro team. However the last reason has mostly gone by the wayside as people put every single team in both now despite the league. So its mostly a hold over from the previous way of doing things. -DJSasso (talk) 13:19, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
I obviously haven't read the directions for this infobox. I was unaware that the Former Teams field was supposed only mean in that league. Granted, I'm not sure that limiting it to that is useful for many players as they shift around the hockey world from year to year. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 15:01, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
No, no, I don't think we should relax that particular restriction, except maybe on a case-by-case basis. I can see the point of making it a different field in some cases, but it seems like former_Teams would at least be a good starting point for a played_for field once the player retires. =) Powers T 15:22, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't think the instructions actually say it anymore. I think it was removed from the instructions when it was realized almost no one was paying attention to them or like you hadn't read them. -DJSasso (talk) 18:14, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Yeah looks like I removed that wording in this edit in May of 2009. -DJSasso (talk) 18:19, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Metric units

Since this template is not called "Infobox US ice hockey player", it should be given the opportunity to show metric units first for European players. I make you notice that feet and pounds are currently used only in two countries in the world... --'''Attilios''' (talk) 16:27, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I tend to agree, we should also have alternative fields to input metric units. The metric system is the international standard, and I'm not sure why these old units are being used here. It's extremely tedious trying to get these units to line up.--Crossmr (talk) 23:18, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
I have added |height_m= and |weight_kg= as alternatives to |height_ft=/|height_in= and |weight_lb=. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:58, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
The height is in m, so we should be entering stuff like 1.80 for it?--Crossmr (talk) 12:53, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
The box converts automatically from feet and inches I believe...and most profiles you will find on the web will have the info in feet and inches so just enter that and you will get both although I suppose that won't put the metric first. -DJSasso (talk) 12:55, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
The Asia league only uses metric units.--Crossmr (talk) 22:39, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Could do a test on an article and try. -DJSasso (talk) 22:40, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
[4], yes it lists metric units first and they should be entered as meters. Thanks Plastikspork--Crossmr (talk) 07:45, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Infobox_ice_hockey_biography/Archive_4&oldid=1138531195"