Template talk:Infobox Football biography

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Template:Infobox Football biography is permanently protected from editing, as it is a heavily used or visible template.

Substantial changes should be proposed here, and made by administrators if the proposal is uncontroversial, or has been discussed and is supported by consensus. Use {{editprotected}} to attract the attention of an administrator in such cases.
Any contributor may edit the template's documentation to add usage notes, categories or interwiki links.
WikiProject on Football
Association football Portal
The article on Template Infobox Football biography is supported by the WikiProject on Football, which is an attempt to improve the quality and coverage of Association football related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page; if you have any questions about the project or the article ratings below, please consult the FAQ.
Template This article has been rated as Template-Class on the quality scale.
NA This article has been rated as NA-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Discussion

Hi, I hope this will be useful. Dont hesitate to improve this template. Have a look at David Beckham, Vincent Kompany or Mbo Mpenza for examples. Julien Tuerlinckx 12:45, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I think it is good idea. thanks. --Monkbel 17:09, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

It is time to add info in the box since only few players already have the infobox in their articles. I suggest to add the following:

  • Position
  • Right/Left footed
  • Distinctions like Golden Boot
  • Place of birth
  • Nationalities?

What else? Julien Tuerlinckx 12:34, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Something else: Should we count the current season games played by a player in the Professional clubs part since it would be generally updated weekly which is quite boring isn't it? Another annoying thing is: what stats should be displayed in the infobox? For the number of matches played, should it be the number of league matches (as it is currently) or the number of official matches with the club (i.e. taking into account domestic and european cup matches), or both? How could we organize this. I also ask the question because i havent got much knowledge in template editing and on its capabilities. Thanx, Julien Tuerlinckx 15:20, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Player Name

Guys, with the notable exception of Brazilians and Spaniards, most of the players use their last name in their shirt. "playername" should be the player's name for everybody except for those who wear a different name on their shirts.
--Sebastian Kessel Talk 16:19, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Honours won

I think a section for anything a player has won (both club and individual honours) would be good. CTOAGN 16:58, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

True, but it might make it a tad long. Maybe just individual honours? --Sebastian Kessel Talk 17:04, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Possibly, but I think that if a player's won a league championship or similar it should be mentioned. Same with major internatoinal honours. CTOAGN 18:23, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Maybe in the article? I really see very long infoboxes if we go that way. --Sebastian Kessel Talk 18:30, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
I concur with Sebastian, (individual and team) honours should be written in a separate section in the article itself. I think it should become a standard in football player articles by the way.

[edit] Revert and update

Julien, sorry to revert your changes, but please b4 doing something that critical put it here.

I don't think it is necessary to add that much information to the infobox. We have retired players that don't play in any "cups" or "teams" right now and the box looks positively ugly without that information. Besides, with close to 50 pages using the box, going back and fixing them all is a long task.

Let's discuss here.

--Sebastian Kessel Talk 15:04, 18 October 2005 (UTC)


Okay, I was browsing through players article and when I remembered the article about Thierry Henry used a table with the detailed selections and goals (the repartition between cup, champ and contiental matches). I think this is the way it should be done, with the infobox summarizing the caps(goals) as it is since the beginning, as sebastian said.

Another thing i was worried about is, as you say, that we would have to change every week the caps(goals) for every player. That's why I added a update field in the box. i think we should keep this as it permits us to update the ciphers when we want to while the ciphers will remain correct. I let you add the update field (needed for both national and team caps(goals))...

Julien Tuerlinckx 15:27, 18 October 2005 (UTC)


Note also that the Thierry Henry article separates each season which is to me a good thing (since it would have been too long to go in the infobox). Julien Tuerlinckx 15:28, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Julien, Please do the update field, since I am not exactly sure on how to do it. :)
--Sebastian Kessel Talk 15:30, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Actually it's not that easy. I think it will be quite annoying to have an update field for retired players. So I think this leaves 2 possibilities:
  • either we create a new infobox (retired football player infobox) slightly different from the current player infobox (like we should do the manager infobox);
  • or we add the date of retiring of the player so that any update date posterior to the retiring date would be correct.
Julien Tuerlinckx 16:44, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
I would leave it as it is, and add the update. I know of quite a few players who "unretired", meaning the "As of XXX" may actually be good. :)
--Sebastian Kessel Talk 16:50, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Ok I added the update as footnotes. I think it looks quite good. Now we need to add the fields pcupdate (last time we updated the pro club caps and goals) and ntupdate (same for national team) to each infobox. Cheers, Julien Tuerlinckx 14:15, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Manager infobox

When i began this infobox, my goal was also to use it to create a manager infobox. I think we just need to add a section (within the infobox) with a title like managed clubs or something. if someone has the time to do it... Julien Tuerlinckx 15:32, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Julien, the only problem I have is that I don't know how to disable something that I don't want on the infobox. Most players we have didn't manage a club. Either they are currently playing, or they just didn't do it. I don't think we should add a section for maybe 20%-30% of the players, unless it can be safely and discreetly hidden when not in use. --Sebastian Kessel Talk 16:26, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
I just thought about copypasting the content of this infobox into a new page called Template:Football manager infobox and adding the new section. If some managers have a player infobox, it suffices to change player by manager in the box and add the new fields.
Julien Tuerlinckx 16:40, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
I like that, but let me perfect the idea. We have two infoboxes:
  1. Regular Player
  2. Player then Manager (The manager was still a player, let us not forget)
The only difference is that the 2nd infobox will have the manager section
--Sebastian Kessel Talk 16:48, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
The Template:Football manager infobox is now achieved. Just add the following characters to player infoboxes of managers (if you follow me):

| manageryears = | managerclubs = , and fill it if you want to. You can see an example at Franky Vercauteren or Georges Leekens. Julien Tuerlinckx 17:55, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ref/note

I've commented out the ref/note templates as they break the nunbering on pages that already use ref and note. CTOAGN 19:11, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Okay, but I think we will need the notes however, but not neccessarily in the form of ref/note (even if it's only used by Vincent Kompany at the time). That's all I found when I decided to add the update dates. Any suggestion about how to keep the info in the box? Thanx, Julien Tuerlinckx 19:47, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

  • It should be possible to just put the text in in the format that ref/note uses. You can use the <sup> tag to get superscript text like this and use the div tag to change text size, eg <div style="font-size: 85%"> smaller text </div> gives:
    smaller text
    Maybe you could use * and ** to link the refs to the footnotes in the infobox - that way there'd be no confusion with any numbered footnote system that the article was using. CTOAGN 20:30, 26 October 2005 (UTC)


I removed the comment and made it the way you suggested. I think it looks quite good. Thanx for the tip, Julien Tuerlinckx 20:48, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
I wondered if it was possible to condition the appearance of the second update parameter (the one for the national teams) because a player who never played for a national team does not need to have an update for his non-existant national team caps and goals... Thanx, Julien Tuerlinckx 10:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Something like Template_talk:Qif combined with Wikipedia:Conditional_expressions you mean? Veila 10:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Overkill?

Hi. Maybe there's too much information on this infobox? I don't know if it has to/should be this...complex. For instance, keeping an account of how many goals a player scored for each club and (when applicable) the national team. This requires constant updating (except for retired players), and the information is sometimes not-that-easy to come by. As a result, there are infoboxes out there filled with question marks, or with entire sections simply left blank. It might also be why the infobox was not inserted in the biographic articles of some rather conspicuous players (e.g. Ronaldo, Ronaldinho, Samuel Eto'o, Frank Lampard — this last one using a different infobox). Maybe there's no need for this much information on the infobox? Regards, Redux 05:56, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi! As I did create this infobox, I will stand for it... If you compare Lampard's infobox and this one you will find that this of Lampard is way more "complete" than this one and there are the goals scored in the national team. For the problem of the club caps and goals, i added two fields (ntupdate and pcupdate) so that the numbers should not be updated each time a player plays for the infobox to be correct. maybe it was too ambitious to think we could retrieve the info for every player but I think we can give it a try. For example, in Belgium, at the beginning of each season, you have a list of all first division players with the caps and goals in the previous clubs and i think this is the same in the big (football) countries. That's my piece of advice,
NB: Have a look at chelseafc.com: they have thoses stats (those to retrieve are the league stats) for every ex-player.
Julien Tuerlinckx 12:41, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
When I said "too much information", I meant in the sense of realistically hoping to have the board duly filled in every entry. Ideally speaking, it's great. I've also seen that, in some of the cases where people did add the info about the caps and goals, they [presumably] forgot to fill the ntupdate and pcupdate lines, so that key information is missing. Also, for some African, Asian and American players, it could be really difficult to find information such as their youth clubs. Furthermore, in South American countries, the information of the career caps and goals, and especially if broken down by club, is not so readly available. Redux 02:21, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Ok, I think we need a third piece of advice... Maybe the best thing would be to be able to work with or without this info. E.g. if we don't have the info, the infobox should be left blank at those places (no '?'). Furthermore it could be great if the youth club and national team sections could be invisible if the info is not available or if the player never played for a national team. Can we do this? Julien Tuerlinckx 19:02, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Talking about overkill, the "place of birth" is somewhat irrelevant as I see it - fore example Brian Laudrup was born in Vienna (Austria) as his father was playing professionally there at the time but that doesn't tell you anything about him as a football player. I mean - the thing of interest is which country a player represents internationally, not the exact place of birth which is already taken care of in the main article. I know there are other facts covered in the article, like time of birth, but info on the persons age (for quickly determining "old" or young up-coming players) is more relevant than where he is born, as I see it. Poulsen 11:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

When I created the infobox used in the Frank Lampard article I did not know about Template:Football player infobox. I've been thinking for a long time whether the latter should be used rather, because I think there should be a consistency in how the articles look and the information they have. As Poulsen says, if "place of birth" is mentioned in the main article, maybe it isn't necessary to have it in the infobox (the same goes for "nickname"). In their place maybe we could have entries on "honours", etc.
As regards the "matches played" and "goals scored", I think it is far more easier to find details for international matches than club ones. Maybe we could just have details for internationals in the infobox, and the club details, if available, could have a separate table (as in the Lampard article). -Aabha (talk) 04:14, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
I feel that Nickname(s) and Position(s) have value as they're a useful part of the synopsis that the box provides. However, a full list of nicknames is, perhaps, a little too verbose for the box and would be more useful in the main article. Likewise, if a player is versatile enough to play in multiple positions then that would deserve a more detailed analysis in the main text. To that end, I think that Nickname(s) and Position(s) should be changed to Nickname and Position and the author should use their discretion to pick the most appropriate single entry. Veila 09:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template name and categorisation

Based on the prevailing standard at Wikipedia:Infobox_templates#People it would seem that the correct name for this template would be Infobox football player. Is it likely to prove overly ardous to make that change? It would also be useful to include the infobox at Wikipedia:Infobox as well. Veila 08:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aesthetics

Most biographical infoboxes that I've looked at seem to set font-size at 95% and limit the box width to around 25em. These two changes make the box look a little less "chunky" which I find more pleasing. What do others think? Also, the datestamp is quite heavy and detracts attention somewhat from the information. Perhaps font-weight: lighter; font-size: 80%; would be appropriate given that it's a qualification of information, rather than information itself? Finally, consider the work that Rascalb has done on an American Football infobox at his user page; specifically the choice of #b0c4de as the background colour. I think it provides a rather attractive contrast and avoids the washed out look of black on grey on white. Veila 09:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've finally finished my Duncan Ferguson rewrite and one of the things I did was put together my ideas on the player infobox. I'd appreciate any comments people might have. Veila 08:06, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

This looks great to me. I would however change the title of playing details to something that would contain the word 'club'. We could also expand the national team section by adding a field youth teams (where we would write U-21 or U-17 for example) and one with the number too. And it should be feasible to hide fields with no info (we alreday spoke about this somewhere). Julien Tuerlinckx 12:16, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

This looks really good. -Aabha (talk) 04:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think I've done the heavy lifting I was aiming for. I've tried to ensure that these modifications don't break existing uses. It appears that almost everything is working well, the only problem I've found was on the Alan Shearer infobox where the position entry was a small essay which led to a huge infobox! I've also included a pretty comprehensive usage guide so we can get the best out of this template. Included in there is a style guide section that reflects only my opinion; I'd really appreciate it if others could debate these points so it can be a community driven consensus. I decided to include the style guide unilateraly to stimulate debate, not to impose my personal preferences. I think I'm going to go lie down now... ;) Veila 10:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Place of birth

I think place of birth should either be hidden (if no entries are made) or completely removed. The data is already in the main article and, unlike other data duplicate from main article to infobox, the place of birth is in no way significant. A player could be born on another continent, if his parents happened to live there at the time, without that meaning anything for him as a "football player" - which is what the infobox should cover. An example would be Brian Laudrup whose father played in Austria, and so he was born there, but the main point of interest isn't where he was born, but what country he would play for internationally. Also, there's the case of all those players who don't explicitly state where they are from, with their "?, Country" entries looking pretty sloppy.

In all, I think the place of birth header should be replaced by a "nationality" header, as nationality is much more important for a football player than where he happened to be born. Poulsen 10:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree actually. Anything we can do to trim out useless data would be beneficial since a fully populated box is rather large. Since I've made so many unilateral changes recently though, I think I'll let a few others voice their opinions on this one! Veila 10:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm a bit unsure if having details of appearances and goals in the infobox in an article where there is a separate table for stats (Thierry Henry, for eg) is needed. They might even have conflicting numbers, if not updated at the same time. -Aabha (talk) 13:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
I think it's OK as long as the update time is written in both tables. The advantage of havigng both tables is to have a quick overview of the player's career in the box, that you can compare with other players, and to have a detailed view (with assists, Continental games, etc.) in the article (only for well-known players?). Julien Tuerlinckx 14:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
I've just run through all 297 (!) articles that make use of this infobox and cleaned up any problems that my recent additions have made. One thing I noticed was that a very large majority of the boxes failed to make use of the {{{pcupdate}}} and {{{ntupdate}}} parameters. I think the current solution works well, but if editors aren't using it then it might be necessary to rethink matters. Veila 05:33, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree that (footballing) nationality should rate a mention; how about incorporating a nice little flag to brighten the boxes up a bit? -- Jellyman 07:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I think this is hinted at by Poulsen above, but would it be possible to do away with the default comma that's included in the place of birth and death fields? If a player's city of birth is unknown, but the country is listed, it looks unsightly (see Miguel Simão). I'd prefer it if editors had to add the comma manually. - Dudesleeper · Talk 22:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Is it the case that you would use {{{cityofbirth}}} without {{{countryofbirth}}}? If not (i.e. if city of birth is present, then country of birth always is), {{{cityofbirth}}} can be moved inside an #if: function which would only display the field and the comma if used. Namely, something like this:
{{#if:{{{cityofbirth| }}}|({{{cityofbirth}}}),}}
Usage would remain the same. Severo 22:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comma after cityofbirth

Could this be made to not show, if the cityofbirth is blank? It looks a bit on of players whose place of birth is unknown (e.g. Emiliano Insua), which is fairly common. It also applies to cityofdeath. ArtVandelay13 14:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

See Template talk:Infobox Football biography#Place of birth. Replacing
{{{cityofbirth}}},
with
{{#if:{{{cityofbirth| }}}|({{{cityofbirth}}}),}}
would do it. A similar edit could me made to {{{city of death}}}. SeveroTC 15:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I've added added the fix for both the birth and death parameters. Hope it works okay. – Elisson • T • C • 16:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This template needs a width: attribute. Any suggestions?

So that it does look uniform on pages and isn't dictated by the text in the table. x42bn6 Talk 08:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

It's okay as it is. Sometimes there are huge club names, and imposing a fixed width would mean that hundreds of articles would require new breaks (<br>). Pages look uniform enough; it's not as if they're ever seen side by side, so differences in width are a necessary but unproblematic evil.
Slumgum 10:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I tried putting in a (generous) fixed width of 25em a few days ago but it broke too many boxes. The only way this could be done is by slimming every box before the fixed width was imposed, but that's a huge amount of work for neglible gain. The most extreme example I can think of is on the Michael Ballack article where the infobox contains a youth club named BSG Motor Fritz Heckert Karl-Marx-Stadt. ⁂veila# 11:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] rv of changes by Ed_g2s

There are several issues regarding the template modifications made by User:Ed_g2s that have not been explained in adequete detail so I have elected to revert them, awaiting his appearance on this talk page.

  1. neutral colour – The subjective design decision to revert back to the original grey is opposed to the prevailing opinion as visible on this very talk page. In addition, Wikipedia:Infobox_colours is certainly not devoid of colour which would beg the question of why #b0c4de; is objectionable.
  2. remove crest as fair use... – This assumes that all crests fall under identical licenses that prohibit such use.
  3. fix hiddenStructure technique – According to my reading of Wikipedia:HiddenStructure, the original incarnation was correct. The example given therein is that of Template:Infobox President which also makes use of the incumbent method. It may well be that the documentation is wrong, but if so, it is a more pressing concern to fix the documentation itself.
  4. Undocumented alteration of margin-left – The extra padding to the left of the infobox was highly deliberate and considered. Given the above–average size of the football player infobox, extra whitespace is required to clean the division of text to border. This isn't in the standard infobox class for good reason; it's not required for smaller boxes. The class definition is a starting point, not a rigid conformity. Upon re–reading the CSS file, I realise that margin-left was already set to 1em, I have updated the infobox with this portion of the edit. ⁂veila# 09:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

For these reasons I find the edit technically incorrect. Beyond that, it is important to consider the relationship between implementation and documentation when altering the template behaviour. If the case is made to reintroduce these changes then it would be only reasonable to update the documentation also. ⁂veila# 09:09, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

  1. Yes there was a small amount of discussion on this talk page about the change of colour, but for a subject such as football, where colour has strong connections with club association, it would be better to leave it as neutral as possible.
  2. Are there any club crests which are released under a different license?
  3. I assumed getting the code to generate an invalid attribute, then having the parser remove it was a bit ugly, but I couldn't find the documentation you've pointed to. I've seen both techniques used.
ed g2s • talk 15:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  1. Well, small or otherwise, there wasn't a dissenting voice. I'm all for reaching consensus on the issue, regardless of what that consensus is, but the current preference appears to be for #b0c4de; so I'd suggest that we leave it, pending more input from others. Anyway, even grey has its advocates; the Everton F.C. away strip comes to mind. The only way to prevent colour bias is to turn the colour into a parameter and set it to the club's identity per instance. That would be a nightmare of inconsistency though.
  2. I have no idea... I think it's a nice addition to the box, but it's probably not usable in over 90% of instances. The question becomes: Is it worth policing license abuse of 90% for the benefit of (the more obscure) 10%? I'd assume not, but then I'm only guessing at the 90/10 partition.
  3. I understand, the same thought crossed my mind on first implementation and neither seems obviously correct, there's apparently some wikivoodoo being performed along the way. If your method is "more correct" (for some value of more), I'd be really eager to use it, but unless you have some knowledge that the documentation is flawed then I think it's best left alone in case some future change assumes that everybody has followed the documented method.
Please don't think that I'm inherently opposed to your edit (though I am very fond of that light–blue!), I just found it irksome that you made such sweeping changes without discussion and, more importantly, skewed the implementation and documentation in the process. ⁂veila# 08:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I would say it's closer to 99% and 1% for the images (if that), and therefore not worth implementing. I too am fond of light blue, but clearly (in the context of football, at least) grey is far more neutral, and was the colour first chosen. ed g2s • talk 15:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Domestic league appearances only

Why is this rule imposed for the infobox? There is no rationale given - to me it seems rather unfair that a player's domestic cup or UEFA Cup/Champions League appearances are excluded from the infobox (especially as they are usually included in the main articles). Qwghlm 19:26, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

While I agree with your sentiment, I also think of the number of edits required to change this and shudder... ⁂veila# 12:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Really? Most players' boxes are updated all the time with appearances info anyway, it wouldn't that much of a problem. Qwghlm 11:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I think you're mistaken about the frequency of updates. When I ran through the infoboxes after my updates I found an alarming number of them to be very much neglected. The other problem is that an editor who doesn't track changes in the template might very easily assume that the fields still refer to league appearances only and put in the wrong value. The only realistic approach would be to deprecate the current fields relating to league statistics and add new, more comprehensive fields which would need to then be populated for each box. But hey, I agree with the idea so if you're willing to put in the work... ;) ⁂veila# 10:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm just sounding out an idea, but we could change the template and then go through the players' articles and add a 'league apps only' disclaimer to those which include stats (not all do). We could share the workload for that - it would only take about 10 seconds to manually add the disclaimer to each. There's about 500 articles that use the template; probably 350 are fully statted. Over time, the articles' "caretakers" would change the stats to reflect all comps and remove the disclaimer. Maybe the disclaimer could be a template itself?
Slumgum | yap | stalk | 19:45, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree with this idea, as most websites with player stats list all appearances for clubs, not just league appearances. This would take a long time to implement in all infoboxes, though. - Nick C (Review Me!) 19:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
I just contacted the site admin of Football Database and he says that the data there if for league appearances. So thats why it think the infobox restricts the data to only league appearances, as these are more freely avaliable.- Nick C 17:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi, if its not possible/desireable to change this template, would there be an objection to creating a new template which would include information on all appearances foreign and domestic (i.e. not have the footnote, or change to state that it lists all leagues and competitions) ? I'm more interested in accurately listing the clubs that a player has played for and goals scored than listing just domestic league teams. --Albert.white 21:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I suggest you include a club career table in those cases instead. Various examples of such can be found on some of the good articles and featured articles of the football project. – Elisson • T • C • 22:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The information is freely available for British players. A player may be deprived of close to half his appearances with League Cup, FA Cup and Champions League outings removed. Londo06 12:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ntupdate

Should this be mandatory? Surely this should only be applied to current players or at the most living players. I think once a player has passed on we can assume this record to be static? 10:33, 26 March 2006 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fasach Nua (talk • contribs)

I refer you to Template:Football player infobox2, for retired players, as mentioned on the main section of this template.
When a player retires, it's easy to change the template by simply adding "2" to the end of the first line:
{{Football player infobox → {{Football player infobox2
much obliged ty Fasach Nua 19:52, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
On an unrelated issue, please be careful not to delete useful comments, as you did with the above section.
Slumgum | yap | stalk | 19:45, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Links in infoboxes are a good thing

As it is mentioned that links are not advised to be placed in player infoboxes, I just thought I'd start a discussion about it, because I disagree! Sure the clubs, birthplace etc. should be mentioned elsewhere in the article, but it's better to have a standard one-stop place to find such info - why bother having the infobox otherwise?!

I'm only making a stand here as I recently added and homogenised the infoboxes for the entire Liverpool squad, just to find someone reverting the Daniel Agger one to have no links and citing this page! grrr... Alii h 17:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Me=someone. I think it's important to use the same guidelines for every player. Using different style standards is against the entire idea of an encyclopedia's method of organization. Saying "all Liverpool players have links" is no good argument for going against the standards - the number one priority is to agree on a common solution enforced universally. Personally I'm pretty indeferent whether as to link or not, but let us do the same thing for all articles. Poulsen 18:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Number of appearances

Should the number of appearances shown be starts only, or include sub appearances.....? The template doesn't allow the normal format of X appearances (plus Y as sub) ChrisTheDude 12:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree (that's why I added the column headings so readers aren't misled), but the problem is that this style is now entrenched in at least several hundred footballer articles. We could have another template that used the 'normal format', but having two similar templates with two different and confusing overlapping information formats would be a separate problem. --Sam Pointon 13:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree it's not going to be feasible to change the existing templates, I was just trying to make sure I used the right numbers when I added the template to Darren Byfield. I have used the number of starts, taken from Soccerbase..... ChrisTheDude 13:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I have always used just the total appearances. I think it's pretty standard in football to just list all appearances regardless of whether it was only 5 minutes on the field as a sub, or after being subbed off. If you look at historical records it's rare to ever see the number of sub appearances listed seperately. If you come on as a sub for a national team you are still given a cap.

While sub appearance details can be illuminating, in my opinion they are not needed and definitely not standard. The current situation is fine in my eyes. I mean, are you going to start arguing that we need to list goal assists, pass completion rates or number of tackles? All of these statistics are very recent in their use... aLii 19:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't exactly say it was standard to just lump all the appearances together. I have in front of me a programme for my club (Gillingham) and in the stats section it shows the season and career appearance records for all the players, and sub appearances are given separately e.g. John Hodge's season stat was 1(+14) ChrisTheDude 06:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Using the number of starts alone is wrong. Theoretically, a player's stats for a club could be 0 (3) - looking as if he's scored 3 goals in 0 matches. Personally I would prefer the sub apps to appear as follows: England 106+0 (49). It's a good way of showing whether a player is a fringe player or whatever. But I'm not sure if it would be instantly and universally understood.
 SLUMGUM  yap  stalk  23:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Idea - an extra parameter in the template to specify which format you're using and have the infobox display the appropriate column headings. This has the downside of multiple formats, but the plus-side of being able to update the format without needing a separate infobox. Would something like this be possible and not be too confusing? --Sam Pointon 23:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Throughout the English media Owen Hargreaves is listed as having 30 caps for England. In the prose they almost always then note that he's had only 7 starts. Surely, rather than continuing to expand (the already pretty large) infobox, we could do the same and mention in the prose whether a player is regular or not? Getting substitute appearance details from more than a few years ago could be a real pain for some players. aLii 07:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Source parameter?

Would it be worthwhile adding a source parameter to this infobox? I'm thinking of something along the lines of {{Infobox Cricketer}}. It may help to keep track of vandalism and unreferenced edits. --Muchness 14:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I came here to post that. The ideal would be that we have some standard reference for certain statistics (is there an official FIFA site that we can get international appearances/goals from, for example?), and then just include that source in the infobox. A second-best would be everyone using their own sources as needed, but then there should be a space to credit them in the infobox. Unsourced statistics aren't good. --Delirium 02:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] caps(goals)?

If it's for Appearances, why is the parameter named "{{{caps(goals)}}}"? -- Jared Hunt 09:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

historically it was for "caps", which are often the same thing as appearances. I guess the real reason it wasn't changed behind the scenes is because of the amount of work it would take to rewrite all the thousands of pages that use "caps(goals)". aLii 11:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Can a bot be used? I guess it's not too important though. -- Jared Hunt 21:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Goalies

Should there be a special infobox for goalkeepers? It seems odd to constantly be listing the goalies as scoring zero goals. Maybe there could be a GAA stat instead? Or shutouts? -- Loudsox 18:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Three words: Jose Luis Chilavert. --Sam Pointon 19:01, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I've used negatives to connote GAA, especially for non-scoring goalies (ie, Chilavert is an obvious exception). --Palffy 21:48, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Peter Schmeichel is another :)
Anyway my 2c is that the goals against stat is more to do with the team than the goalkeeper in most circumstances. aLii 14:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree that goals conceded does not tell us very much about the goalkeeper. It tells us more about the team. As there are goalkeepers that score the occasional goal, the present infobox works. -- Alias Flood 17:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] height standard

I think there should be a standard for what units are used in the height because for Thierry Henry for example it is put in both sets of measurements. Yonatanh 21:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I would say that's a good way of showing it. (6' 2" / 1.88 m) As long as both are accurate enough.  SLUMGUM  yap  stalk  03:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia promotes the use of units most relevant to the country from which the topic hails. This presents a question when a player comes from a country that uses imperial units but plays in a country using the metric system. In this instance, I would favour the use of the playing country's idiom, as the natural categorisation of footballers is by club, not by nationality. ⁂veila# 13:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I think there needs to be a standard as for some players it's 180cm and for some it's 1.8m and some have it just in feet and inches and some have it both ways, etc. Every possible combination can be done for any player, no matter where he's from. Ronaldinho for example now has his height in the customary system as well. Also, don't they use the metric system in England nowadays? Yonatanh 23:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Also how about date of birth, 1 July, 2006 or July 1, 2006. is 1 July, 2006 what's used in Europe as opposed to the states? Yonatanh 23:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, how about the nickname, same line with a comma seperating between the nicknames or two nicknames deserve two different lines? Yonatanh 01:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

WRT the DOB thing, Mediawiki handles that for you - if the date isn't horribly munged and it's linked, it'll convert the date to your preferred format. --Sam Pointon 01:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Where do I choose my preferred date format? Yonatanh 01:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

You will find date preferences (and other preferences) under 'my preferences' at the top of your page, near to your watchlist. -- Alias Flood 01:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Where are things such as what sort of height to use in this infobox decided? I really think a standard is needed. Yonatanh 15:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe the general MoS dictates that heights should be given in both metric and imperial units, so so long as both are given, it should be fine and satisfy all readers. --Sam Pointon 15:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes but it seems like there's a better way of going about this instead of one player saying 180cm (6' 4") and another saying 1.8m / 6'4" etc. Yonatanh 01:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I added a summary from the Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers) to a new Units of measurement section to remove any confusion.--Clawed 04:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Height template

Is the use of the template {{Height}} allowed? --ChaChaFut 18:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Starting to use the template in all biographic infoboxes due to lack of response. --ChaChaFut 21:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I missed this. I use the template, although it doesn't always work, such as 1.82m being converted to 5ft 12in. Since there are 12in in a ft, it would be 6ft 0in.  Sʟυмgυм • т • c  21:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I will keep that in mind. --ChaChaFut 02:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I'd say no. By all means, use it to convert between metres and feet & inches, but there's no need to leave the template call in-line as the data's not going to change in the same way as it will for {{birth date and age}}. robwingfield «T•C» 14:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
It's useful in maintaining a standardised format. I agree with Robwingfield in principle, but not in practice. If it was {{subst}}-able, I would recommend subst-ing. But it's not.  Sʟυмgυм • т • c  16:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
So maybe the template should be amended so that it is? Or alternatively, just get rid of the linking that occurs on the template, which is very ugly-looking. Regarding the standardised format, there already is one, as per WP:UNITS, which means in this case that if someone's 5 ft 10 in we would need to write 5&nbsp;ft 10&nbsp;in (1.78&nbsp;m). robwingfield «T•C» 18:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
That seems like a lot of typing to me, and needs a calculator to make the conversion. This seems an excessive amount of work, rather than merely using the template. As already mentioned, use of the template also guarantees a consistent presentation. I agree however, that the links to the units are ugly and it would be also be better if there was a substitution available. Daemonic Kangaroo 18:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
A fair point. I'll compromise for the moment, then. If someone uses the template then I won't re-edit to remove the template unless I have another edit to make. I've raised the subject of removing the linking at Template talk:Height#Links... I'll wait to see the verdict on that before proposing that someone redevelops the template so that it can be subst'd. robwingfield «T•C» 21:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
My point is a mixture of the conversation above and this one. {{{height}}} — The player's height in the units most common within the country he plays. Alot of UK based players do not have the correct measurements first. Where appropriate 6 ft 0 in (1.83 m) should be used. I think this is worthy of a drive to clean up UK player pages.Londo06 18:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Linking discussion

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Infobox linking(?). aLii 19:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Forks

The infoboxes for managers are very similar to this one. Any reason we can't just merge them all into one, and maybe call it 'Infobox Football biography'? Flowerparty☀ 03:11, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and merged them. The only problem I can see is that the first parameter is called 'playername', even for managers who have not been players, but I don't suppose that really matters. Flowerparty☀ 03:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
The rationale for having the multitude of infoboxen was that when a player retired, the only modification required was to change infobox to infobox2. Likewise if they moved into management, it was a simple modification. The interfaces were kept aligned for that purpose. ⁂veila# 12:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Debut information

Would anyone like to see two additional fields in the 'Club' section, namely 'debut' and 'first (league) goal' for the player's current club? It would be useful to see the date of a player's debut, and perhaps interesting to compare with how long a lpayer waited for his first goal. Comments anybody? Fedgin 09:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

No thank you, I think the infobox is already quite epic enough as is! We need to leave at least something for the article itself. ⁂veila# 11:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Ditto. I think this info is better suited to a sentence.  sʟυмɢυм • т • c  13:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
OK, fair enough. Fedgin 15:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Parentheses for goals

Parentheses (brackets) are used after appearances for goals in these boxes, e.g. 44 (10). I think this is a confusing convention because, in UK newspapers/websites at least, substitutions and not goals are given in brackets. I know it would take a bot to change it (assuming anyone agrees) but would it not be better to have it as 44 - 10, or 44, 10, just to avoid any confusion? Nach0king 22:10, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Contract end

I think it be a good idea with place to "Contract end". It could be under the header "Club information". What do you think?? kalaha 17:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe, but this sort of info is often very difficult to find, and loan deals can complicate matters. It is only useful for showing how long a club can expect a tranfer fee etc - it's no solid indication that the player will be at the club for any length of time. I would say it's better included in the main text.  sʟυмɢυм • т • c  18:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I can see your point, but it could just be "hidden", as "Date of death" etc. I think things like these belongs to an infobox. kalaha 20:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I think this would be a great optional field to add to the infobox. jaco♫plane 22:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I concur. It would be a useful addition. Maybe also including an automated way of including a reference such as in Template:Infobox Ethnic group. --Bagande 22:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} I restart this point, as I still like the idea. This:

{{#if: {{{contractend|<noinclude>-</noinclude>}}} | 
{{!}}'''Contract end'''
{{!}} colspan="2" {{!}} {{{contractend}}}
{{!}}-

should be inserted just after clubnumber. kalaha 19:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

done. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I reverted, broke the template. Secret account 19:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I found out that a }} after the following {{!}}- would fix the templatebreaking. kalaha 19:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

{{#if: {{{contractend|<noinclude>-</noinclude>}}} | 
{{!}}'''Contract end'''
{{!}} colspan="2" {{!}} {{{contractend}}}
{{!}}-
}}

- Now corrected. kalaha 18:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

done. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I can't believe this has actually been added to the infobox. First of all, it's hardly vital information and, IMO, has no place in the infobox. Second, it is very difficult to find information on players' contracts, and even then the info is often unreliable. Most of the time, it's purely speculative. I move that this parameter be removed from the infobox. – PeeJay 08:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I concur, I can't see what useful purpose it serves, and as you note it's extremely hard to reliably source. I had a quick scout round and couldn't find a reliable source that gave this information for more than a couple of players at my club....... ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
The only time I've ever seen information about a player's contract is when they've signed for a new club and it is reported that "Player X has signed a Y-year contract with Club Z", or the player's contract is about to expire, in which case the information will only be valid for a few more months. Either way, if you could remove the parameter from the infobox, Chris, that'd be swell :D – PeeJay 10:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree it's an unnecessary addition. - Dudesleeper / Talk 19:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Any chance we can get someone to remove it? – PeeJay 16:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Please? Someone? – PeeJay 20:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
It's gone ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Apps vs Caps

I would use the term 'caps' over 'apps' in this infobox - I would have thought that caps would be the more appropriate term, or is this just a colloquial term? I'm assuming that apps is short for appearances, but I didn't find it very clear in the infobox. What do others thing? Ollie 22:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The short answer is that players don't win caps for club appearances. I would leave it as it is. sʟυмɢυм • т • c  23:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rightalign apps(goals)?

As it is now, more and more templates are edited to add {{0}}s, in order to right-align the number of apps and goals.

Example:

  • 007 (10)
  • 115 0(5)

Instead of adding so many {{0}}s, it would be easier to right-align the apps(goals) parameter in the infobox, perhaps with a small margin between the tallies and the right edge of the template. It would render the {{0}}s before the apps tally needless, though {{0}}s might still be needed for to align the goal tallies. It is a small change, but would spare some typing in new templates and stylizing of existing templates in the long run. Especially goalkeepers who score few if any goals, would benefit. Poulsen 09:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Long term, I think this would be better.  sʟυмɢυм • т • c  20:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Professional clubs

I was wondering what the consensus would be to change this parameter to Clubs or Club teams, since very few people (myself included) seem to obey it and include non-league/non-professional teams. I don't really see why only professional clubs should be listed anyway. - Dudesleeper · Talk 19:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Another solution could be Senior clubs. kalaha 19:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit conflict with Kalaha] Agree to change, perhaps to Senior clubs? – Elisson • T • C • 19:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
That works for me. - Dudesleeper · Talk 21:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree - professional clubs can be a bit restrictive. Senior clubs is a good idea. Daemonic Kangaroo 21:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with that, but isn't it possible that it would create a non-notability issue, regarding players that have not played professionally? --ChaChaFut 23:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
As long as there's a recognised professional club in the list, I don't see this being a problem. - Dudesleeper · Talk 23:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Flags

I've seen a few boxes contain flagicons next to a player's clubs. I think this looks awful and detracts from the infobox, but before removing them, is there anywhere where this was previously discussed? Mk3severo 17:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if it has been discussed elsewhere, but I agree with your opinion on this matter.  Sʟυмgυм • т • c  18:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I really like them. They give a quick, easy, visual indication of a country, saving users a few seconds. I'd rather oppose their removal, myself. — OwenBlacker 10:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
You like them, but did you ever see how it looks in IE6? It looks really awful. I agree with Mk3severo and I think that these flags shouldn't be used until they will be fully compatible with all browsers.--Repli cant 11:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
This has been discussed a bazillion times before in a bazillion different places. No-one seems to be able to come to any agreement, but the flags are slowly proliferating.
Personally, I don't like them that much. With regard to footballers, I think that they are OK next to player, as they can represent a particular country at that sport. I definately don't like then next to mangament staff though. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 17:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Adding flags next to clubs also often throws the box out of sync, so that's another reason for not adding them WikiGull 15:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Badges would look better in my opinion. Bababoum 20:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Not compatible with WP:FU. – Elisson • T • C • 20:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Yesterday I saw an article containing state flags, which is a step closer to insanity (mine, at least). Do we think we'll reach a consensus here regarding football infoboxes so that we can finally offer a point of reference for our removal of the blighters? - Dudesleeper · Talk 09:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Here is an example from a football-related article, I'm sure there are loads more.... ChrisTheDude 10:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Place of birth and flag icons

Is there any consensus on whter a flag is needed in the "place of birth" section, and if so, is it meant to be before or after the location? For example, just having a random look through the Man Utd (and ex) players, and Dong has it after, Beckham has it before and Vidic doesn't have it at all.

Some kind of consensus needed? Darkson - BANG! 16:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Position of managers in infobox

I've noticed that some people put a former player's position to be Manager (former Midfielder), for example, in the infoboxes. My view is that position refers to the position they played in, and if they are currently a manager of a club, then that can go in the club number bit of the box. Am tempted to just change a couple that I've spotted just now, but thought this might be worth wider discussion and a consensus on how to deal with this. WikiGull 21:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree completely, and this is something I always try to fix. I think there needs to be a new, optional, 'job' field. Without that, it should go in the club field, with a br/ if necessary. ArtVandelay13 21:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Could this not be resolved by changing the field title in the infobox from Position to Playing position?
The above discussion has been copied from Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#Position_of_managers_in_infobox Daemonic Kangaroo 12:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I have take the liberty of amending the title for the "position" field to read "Playing position" to make it more obvious what should go there. Daemonic Kangaroo 12:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] hCard microformat

Please add hCard microformat mark-up (see WP:UF for background) by adding the following HTML classes:

  • class="infobox" =>
    • class="infobox vcard"
  • colspan="3" style="text-align:center; font-size: large"|{{{playername}}} =>
    • colspan="3" style="text-align:center; font-size: large" class="fn"|{{{playername}}}
  • {{!}} colspan="2" {{!}} {{{nickname}}} =>
    • {{!}} colspan="2" {{!}} <span class="nickname">{{{nickname}}}</span>
  • {{!}} colspan="2" {{!}} {{{currentclub}}} =>
    • {{!}} colspan="2" {{!}} <span class="org">{{{currentclub}}}</span>
  • {{!}} colspan="2" {{!}} {{{position}}} =>
    • {{!}} colspan="2" {{!}} <span class="role">{{{position}}}</span>

Where a "fullname" is present, the "fn" class could be applied to that instead of the "playername"; but I don't know how to code that.

I'll then update the documentation accordingly. Thank you. Andy Mabbett 18:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. Oldelpaso 18:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. I's also suggest adding {{template doc}}, and moving the documentation from this page to the resultant /doc page (see, for example {{Infobox State Senator}}). Andy Mabbett 18:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nicknames

I haven't seen anything in the archives (which doesn't mean it isn't there) regarding the Nickname field of the infobox. Only one (the most well-known) is supposed to be listed, but having just reverted Paul Scholes' article, it reminded me that this rarely happens. I'll be attempting to remedy this wherever I see it, but just wanted to mention it here. - Dudesleeper · Talk 19:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I noticed yesterday that Kieran Richardson had a few, but Edwin van der Sar has just as many. It's ridiculous.  Sʟυмgυм • т • c  20:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I'd like to see the nickname field taken out of the infobox altogether. There are very few players who have single, distinctive nicknames like "Zizou", and the most of the rest are simply not notable. Plus, the initial+uniform number combination like "TH14" and "CR7" aren't nicknames - they're internet shorthands. I just don't see the value of listing nicknames along with truly encyclopedic information like height and club history. Ytny (talk) 21:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Nickname in infobox = bollocks. Infobox = fact. Leave the nicknames for citations within the text of particular articles. The Rambling Man 21:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree, nicknames should be placed withing thetext itself. GiantSnowman 22:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Fourth'd. I too would like to see them taken out of the infobox completely. If we get a consensus here, maybe we should do just that. - Dudesleeper · Talk 22:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

People misuse the nickname parameter, I agree. But removing it, naah, I think it deserves its place there. But it should only be used for real nicknames, not the internet shorthands or word plays and similar (van der Star). – Elisson • T • C • 22:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd also back removing it, for a number of reasons. Firstly, it doesn't really stand well the "fact-based" nature of the infobox. Secondly, it's a pain to maintain as IPs and vandals often add numerous ones. Thirdly, most of the nicknames listed are only used by a couple of people, or not at all. Or they're ones used occasionally by the media. Take El Pele Blanco on Rooney's page - I've heard it used about twice by tabloids, but the infobox suggests it's just as much his nickname as Wazza etc. Fourthly, people feel a desire to fill it, even if the player doesn't really have a nickname. I just think we'd be better off without it. If there's a firm consensus here shall we go for it? HornetMike 00:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

If there's a firm consensus here shall we go for it? I think we have one, but we should probably wait a few days to give more people a chance to comment on it. - Dudesleeper · Talk 17:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good to me, if a nickname is truely that and well known then include in text, but not in infobox WikiGull 17:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I must confess to mixed feelings on this subject. If a player was known as Nudger or Fattie or Big Ron and the nickname can be cited to a reliable source, I see no reason why it should not stay in the infobox. Having said that, it seems to give an excuse for a lot of (expletive deleted) users to add anything they like without any evidence, as has happened regularly with Peter Crouch, Alan Shearer, Theo Walcott and many others. On balance therefore, I agree with the consensus above - that the field should be deleted from the infobox which can then be restricted to matters of fact. Nicknames can then be mentioned in the body of the article with appropriate citations. Daemonic Kangaroo 19:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I would vote for removing it. Any noteworthy nicknames can go in the main body, if sourced. Archibald99  19:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I've now removed the nickname field per the above consensus. Oldelpaso 18:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Will the 'nickname' attribute be automatically removed from infoboxes in articles (e.g. by a bot)? Or is this a manual task? If a nickname is especially notable and can be referenced, I guess it should be moved into the article proper. --Jameboy 21:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

It'll just sit there not displaying, like all the articles that have got "shirt supplier" and "shirt sponsor" listed..... ChrisTheDude 21:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Timing of transfers

It is not uncommon for transfers to be announced some time before their coming into effect, particularly in the time frame between the end of the season and the expiration date of a contract. IMHO, infoboxes should only record what is true at the time of writing/reading, and not a few weeks thereafter (Wiki is not a crystal ball). I suspect that the easy part will be confirming agreement of that here: the tricky part will be preventing over-enthusiastic editors applying changes prematurely. Kevin McE 11:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. For example, Steve Sidwell is currently contracted to Reading, and is until the end of this month. However, it would be ludicrous to suggest he is still a Reading player when the club themselves have announced he's left[1], and he's passed a medical at Chelsea. There are no games left to play, the players are not training as it is during their holiday period, and when they do come back to train, it will be with their new clubs. As such, it's pendantry to the point that it's misleading if we don't update the articles. robwingfield «T•C» 11:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, transfers are usually set for July 1, but if both clubs involved have no games to play, and then the deal is done, then it's much more useful and informative to list players with their new clubs. ArtVandelay13 12:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't agree. If a player is still contracted to one club, it makes more sense to list him as at that club, with a note in the prose to the effect that a move has been agreed from the future point. - fchd 12:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I thought that as long as the transfer has been agreed and the selling club does not have any further fixtures (the player has effectively left) then the current club info was changed. For example, Gareth Bale, Steve Sidwell and Luke Varney have all had their current clubs changed as they will no longer play for (or train with) their "current" clubs again. I don't believe this is a case of WP:Crystal Ball, which states: "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." A contract has been signed; it is certain to take place and is notable. Dave101→talk  13:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Varney and Bale are not relevant examples, as they have moved during the time of their contracts, and therefore do not have to wait until July 1 to move. In the cases of Hargreaves and Sidwell, and many others, even if a contract has been signed, it is a contract to be a player of that club from 1st July. It is false to say that they are players of those clubs on 1st June. Kevin McE 19:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
No, the transfer window opens on 1 July, no player can move before that date. Bale and Varney are no different to Hargreaves. All these transfers will be finalised when the transfer window opens on 1 July. Dave101→talk  19:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Then why this soccernet transfer section shows that Varney transferred on May 21 and not listed on pre-agreed deals for July 1 like Sidwell. There must be a reason for this. Martin tamb 06:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Deals are not official til the period July 1 to August 31 and January 1 to January 31. Therefore Steve Sidwell is still a Reading player, Owen Hargreaves is still a Bayern player, Luca Toni is still at Fiorentina, Marcel Jansen is still at Borussia Moenchengladbach, Scott Parker is still at Newcastle United and Mike Hanke is still at VfL Wolfsburg. It is technically incorrect to say they are at their new clubs. Kingjeff 16:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Note that there some special circumstances where transfer can happen outside the transfer window as those transfer windows only apply for so called winter leagues (August-May). Player may come to clubs from summer leagues (Feb-Nov) such as Russian League, MLS, Argentina, etc. Such cases happen when Alexey Smertin left Charlton Athletic F.C. on March, Abel Xavier move to LA Galaxy on May, Juan Pablo Angel in April, Juan Roman Riquelme loaned in February. Well it's not really relevant, but it's worth to know this. ^_^ Martin tamb 06:45, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

If you take a look here at Michael Ballack, you would see one of many examples of where transfers were not recognized before July 1 even though agreements were already made. Kingjeff 17:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

It may be technically incorrect, but to all intents and purposes it is correct, and isn't that more useful and informative, particularly given that they're not going to play, or even train with their (official) current clubs again? ArtVandelay13 17:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

No. Giving false information is not good. Kingjeff 17:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not false; false is far too strong a word; false is reporting transfer speculation as a done deal. What use is it to a WP reader that Sidwell is still a officially Reading player, when he will never return to the club in any capacity, and will definitely join Chelsea before his next involvement in club football? ArtVandelay13 18:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
The main issue I am concerned with is the amount of work which will present itself on July 1. A referenced statement in the lead announcing the move would be very useful. It would mean that it's obvious that the page is out of date and would show editors that a move is expected.  Sʟυмgυм • т • c  18:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Not to mention the ridiculous amount of reverting that would have to be done over the next month - especially over something so trivial. Dave101→talk  18:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
It's not a really big thing, this issue will be gone in 30 days, don't waste your time arguing for an issue that will be gone completely after 30 days. Anyway I have some suggestion that you guys might wanna consider, what if under current club we listed the future transfer, I once see this in some players page but I couldnt't recall which one. I made the example below. (Note: This is similar with how Football Manager shows future transfer on the players page). ^-^ Martin tamb 18:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Rodolfo Arruabarrena
Personal information
Date of birth {{{dateofbirth}}}
Place of birth    {{{countryofbirth}}}
Playing position Left-back
Club information
Current club Villarreal
Joining AEK Athens on July 1, 2007
Number 3
Senior clubs1
Years Club App (Gls)*
2000–2007
2007–		 Villarreal
AEK Athens		 165 (9)
– (–)   

1 Senior club appearances and goals
counted for the domestic league only.
* Appearances (Goals)

However, if, for example, Owen Hargreaves suffered a career ending injury between now and 1st July (god forbid!), then we will not, and never would have been, a manchester united player, because he would currently not be under contract to Manchester United.

By all means mention in the main article that player X is joining club Y on date Z, but the info box should only present past and present information. Darkson - BANG! 16:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, add in the fact that the date at the bottom of the info box (if updated at all) will at best read todays date, not a date a month or so down the line. Therefore the info box should only show information upto and including today. Darkson - BANG! 16:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Weight parameter request

{{Editprotected}} I believe that a "weight" parameter should be added to this template, following the same format as the "height" parameter. Obviously, it would be an optional parameter, but if people believe that height is a necessary parameter to include in the template, then weight should be too. - PeeJay 10:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Individuals' weights fluctuate a little more than their height, so it probably shouldn't be included. - Dudesleeper · Talk 11:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Dudesleeper, even though he made a misleading typo ;) Weight fluctuates, height doesn't. Just look at the photos of Ronaldinho from this season and last that were published by the world press after Barcelona got knocked out of this season's Champions League. aLii 16:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Even though that is factually correct, there is usually only 1 weight number per season. Even at this, it probably wouldn't change on a seasonal basis. Kingjeff 16:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Unless a player is out injured for weeks or months at a time and can't train. - Dudesleeper · Talk 16:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm refering to their weight number on their club's official website. Kingjeff 16:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
But that doesn't mean it's accurate for future use, for the reason I've stated above. - Dudesleeper · Talk 16:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

But height and weight go together. Kingjeff 16:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

This is what I'm trying to say. Although weight can fluctuate more than height does, clubs tend to publish just the one weight for their players each season. And if I'm quite honest, any player whose weight fluctuates that much is either extremely out of shape or still developing. PeeJay 17:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Which are both legitimate possibilities. - Dudesleeper · Talk 17:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Well according to himself and his club, Ronaldinho hadn't put on weight, and wasn't overweight. Each a blatent lie. Weight information is also not as easy to obtain as height info, and has less relevence to a player's performance and abilities than the height measurement. Weight can be muscle or fat or clothes or what food the player ate that day. Height can only be height. aLii 17:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
That is one of the daftest arguments I've heard in a while. Weight measurements are usually taken during medical examinations (usually performed at the start of each season), and I've never heard of anyone taking a medical examination with clothes on or on a full stomach. As for it being "muscle or fat", yes, that's what weight is: body mass. PeeJay 17:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
We all have opinions about what in the above is daft, but it's best not to state them. You've asked for the parameter to be added; now it's up to an admin to decide. - Dudesleeper · Talk 17:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Can you back that up? Kingjeff 17:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

It's fairly clear there is no consensus for the change, so I've declined the request for now. Feel free to re-add if discussion reaches a consensus for change. - auburnpilot talk 19:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Documentation

{{editprotected}} Hi, I want to request moving the documentation at the top of this page to a doc subpage, the have this transcluded to the infobox (with noinclude obviously), so I can easily archive this long talk page, thanks --Andersmusician VOTE 05:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 15:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
nevermind thanks --Andersmusician VOTE 22:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
wait now it looks terrible, I wonder if you could please add a {{subst:clear}} between the end of the infobox and the template:Template doc, so we don't have both at the samwe height here. --Andersmusician VOTE 22:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 01:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Parameters

The parameters at Template:Infobox_Football_biography#Parameters need amending so that they tie up to the actual template now in use; e.g.

  • As the {{{nickname}}} has been removed from the template, it should be removed from the list of parameters.
  • At {{{clubnumber}}} the list of parameters says "The shirt number of the player at his most recent club". Should this not say something like: "The shirt number of the player at his current club. Leave blank if retired."
  • Should there not be an explanation of {{{manageryears}}} & {{{managerclubs}}}?

Daemonic Kangaroo 05:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Season years

There is an inconsistency between the manner in which a player's years at a club are shown in the template and the way they are shown in the player Manual of Style. In the latter the years are shown in full e.g. 1985-1987 whereas in the template they are abbreviated to 1985-87.

The explanation given at Template:Infobox_Football_biography#Season_year_format is rather trite; "In order to keep the infobox from ballooning laterally, it is wise to keep date formats as compact as possible" especially as "2002–present" takes up more space than "2002-2003". What causes the width of infoboxes to balloon is the length of club names, especially if a player has spent time on loan to Wolverhampton Wanderers!

The template also needs amending to use the {{0}} to tidy up the appearances (goals) column.

Incidentally, the infobox at Template:Infobox Football biography/doc no longer displays correctly on a small (laptop) screen (although fine on a larger monitor), as the data in the club section are folding. Has some restriction been put on the width of the infobox? At present it looks a mess. Daemonic Kangaroo 05:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I use eight digits if the player's career has spanned two centuries, six if it hasn't. I never write 'present'. ArtVandelay13 10:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Unfotunately, there is a lack of consistency, which I am trying to address. ArtVandelay13 has created articles for Lee Boylan and Carl Regan for example. In the infobox for the former the years are shown as "2006-2007" whilst in the latter they are shown as "2005-06". I know it's only my opinion, but I prefer the former style and think the Regan infobox looks messy - furthermore I can see no need for shorthand when column space is not a problem. Daemonic Kangaroo 12:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Regan's article does look untidy, because there is internal inconsistency, I'd admit that. My approach has since changed to that which I detailed above; I haven't managed to change all previously created infoboxes yet. For players whose careers have been entirely in one century, I'd continue to use 1993-97 etc for all columns (compare Boylan with Johnny Newman (footballer)), as I think it reads more naturally and column space is an issue, and it's not something to be wasted. ArtVandelay13 13:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Height template in template

While I'm on a roll, can I also bring up the old chestnut of the use of the {{height}} template. This was discussed above.

Again there is no consistency between the player MoS and the template. The explanation at Template:Infobox_Football_biography/doc#Units_of_measurement makes no reference to the {{height}} template, whereas the examples use the template. As more and more infoboxes use the {{height}} template, should this not be adopted as the standard and the documentation and the player MoS should be brought in line. Daemonic Kangaroo 05:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I am for this.  slυмgυм [ ←→ ] 21:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I am against this. robwingfield «T•C» 22:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Place for Image attribution

Any way we could include a field for image attribution below the picture? Some people release images under Creative Commons Attribution, where they ask to have the name of the copyright holder attributed in the immediate vicinity of the image. See for instance the copyright note on commons:Image:Veigar Pall Gunnarsson 2006 06 06.jpg. The attribution should be right below the image, I think, in a smallish font. I can't find a way to accomplish this with the current infobox. Shanes 22:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Like this?  slυмgυм [ ←→ ] 21:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, that works. Thanks! Shanes 23:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Nah, looks rubbish. Isn't there a WP policy stating that stuff should only appear in the image's own page? - Dudesleeper · Talk 00:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Is there? I don't know of any such guideline or policy myself, but then again no person can know them all... But this is actually one case (the only, I think) where I feel a tiny bit of added uglyness might be worth it. We desperately lack (good) free pictures of most football players, and such pictures should really be quite easy to get if more people were motivated to go to matches with a decent camera and take and release photos of players. Having their name on Wikipedia in small under the picture they took might motivate a few more, and is a rather small prize to pay for getting more and better pictures. Just my opinion, and if theres a policy stating otherwise, then never mind. Shanes 00:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Maybe it isn't as frowned-upon as it once was, but I'd still prefer that the caveat be followed. From Wikipedia:Captions:
Tips for describing pictures
Here are some details people might want to know about the picture (all are linkable):
  • What is noteworthy about the subject of the picture? If there is an article on the subject of the picture, link to it.
  • For photographs:
    • Where was it taken?
    • When was it taken?
    • Who took it? (Generally, this is only included in the caption if the photographer is notable.)
    • Why was it taken?
- Dudesleeper · Talk 09:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Certainly I attributed the action photo on Leek Town F.C. by placing a small credit underneath and someone removed it stating that credits belong only on the image page ChrisTheDude 14:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] da:Skabelon:Fodboldspiller

Would it be possible to add da:Skabelon:Fodboldspiller? --Fr0ztbyt3 22:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Y Done SeveroTC 22:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Can we change "current club" to "current team"?

Because it doesn't make sense for international managers, e.g. Stuart Pearce Borisblue 02:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Weight?

Can we please add weight to this?

|weight = {{weight|kg=59}}

That sort of coding? ¡иąтнąи! | Talk | Email| 12:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

See the discussion above. The consensus seems to be that as weight varies, it will not be accurate: club's might release a weight measurement once a year for players (or upon their signing, but never update it) and so it is only ever going to be a snapshot of the situation on a particular day, not a reliable fact. Figures released by different clubs might be measured under different conditions, and so may not be directly comparable. Kevin McE 17:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brazilian league apps

What are we counting as "league appearances" for Brazilian players? Brazilian teams play in 2 different leagues, the national league - Campeonato Brasileiro (which is divided into Serie A, Serie B, Serie C, etc. just like Italy) and the state leagues, such as the Campeonato Pernambucano. Essentially the year is divided in half (kind of like the Argentinian system with Apertura/Clausura - except it's 2 completely different leagues). Now, it is much easier to find caps/goals for the Campeonato Brasileirao (for example L'Equipe only lists those stats - [2]) but it gives a misleading view of a player's influence in the team. For example, Ilan actually played 29 matches for Atletico during his first season, counting the state league appearances, which implies that he was a key player for them. But L'Equipe lists him as making just 12 appearances, which would be more of a backup squad player. ugen64 14:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Very minor tweak needed

There are 3 spaces after "Place of birth " Buc 11:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

What effect does it have on the functionality of the template? - Dudesleeper · Talk 15:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requesting edit

Apps (Gls) looks like Apps (GIs), (note: the first was written with a small letter "L" and the latter with a capital "I", which sort of makes my point) and isn't very clear from reading as a result. Can it be changed to simply G, as there is an explanation at the bottom of the box for what the abbreviations stand for anyhow? MSJapan 20:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Wait, it's supposed to be "Gls" (with an L)? I was wondering what "GIs" stood for... "goals in"? ugen64 04:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Gls stands for "goals". Cloudz679 20:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but my point is that it isn't displaying properly, and therefore I think it should be changed, especially since the abbreviations are explained in the box. MSJapan 22:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I know that now, but it looks like "GIs" (with a capital i) which was confusing me. I agree it could be changed to simply "G". ugen64 00:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Non-league league appearances?

The infobox specifies that only league appearances be included, but this leaves open to conjecture the level of league and competition intended. Some cup competitions (e.g. the Champions League (check out the name) and former versions of the Associate members cup in England and Wales) have a league format for part of the elimination. But maybe more to the point, is the level of competition that is describable as "league": reserve sides play competitions in a league format, as does my nephew's cub scout team: I am confident that these are not intended for inclusion, but hopefully the point is made. There must be a threshold below which competition, even though it is in a league with promotion and relegation, is excluded. In England, there is the particular problem that teams below level 4 in the pyramid are colloquially described as "non-league", although there is a clear structure for many more levels. Players who have played at higher levels have often spent time in their careers in this "non-league league" status: does it make a difference the stage of the career at which this occurs?

So to put some specifics: Lee Hughes played for Kidderminster Harriers at level 5 before his career took off: stats to be included?

Adrian Coote played for Wivenhoe Town (level 8) at the end of his career: stats to be included?

Jon Wallis went on loan from Gillingham to Folkestone (level 7, I think): stats to be included?

A number of players (many of the current Barnet or Shrewsbury squads, for example) will have remained at the same club as that club changed status from non-league to league, or vice versa, and in some cases in both directions. Stats for some seasons, but not others, to be included?

I'm not sure that I have the answers, I'm just raising the question. I think I have read somewhere that only level 4 and above is applied in England, but I cannot find that; is there to be a cut-off point agreed for every other football playing nation? Kevin McE 09:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The Infobox states 'The Domestic League' - this refers to the division that a team is in; its main competition, which is in most cases pretty clear and unambigious - it has even been spelled out as 'The Domestic League' rather than simply 'League' so as to avoid any League/Non-League distinctions. This is done because most statistical sources record only league stats. ArtVandelay13 09:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
To summarise:
  • Professional league football - counted
  • Semi-pro/Amateur league football (including regional leagues) - counted
  • European football - not counted
  • Cup football (including group stages) - not counted
  • Playoffs - not counted
  • Youth/reserve football - not counted
  • Friendlies - not counted
ArtVandelay13 09:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I'd say that if reliable stats are available for the non-league portion of a player's career are available, they should be included, but should of course count league matches only ChrisTheDude 16:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
What if a player during one season plays for a team at level 1 and sometimes for the second team of the club in level 3? Should the matches in level 3 be included oder left out? Or should there be another entry for the second team? --jaellee 18:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
If the second team plays in the league structure, then that should be included, yes (as a separate row), providing the data can be found. ArtVandelay13 18:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I have a related question. What about complicated cases like Andreas Beck? He made appearances for Stuttgart II and Stuttgart between 2005-07. This makes the "years" confusing as you have 2 rows with overlapping years (and it gets even more confusing in cases like Silvio Meißner). ugen64 04:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Apps/goals denotation in managerial infobox

When implementing the "managers who have not been players" template, the "Apps/gls" legend still appears at the foot of the infobox (see José Mourinho, for example). I'm not going to lose sleep over it, but others might. - Dudesleeper · Talk 15:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Where to list the college team?

I've seen the player's college team listed both under youth club and under senior club. Shouldn't there be a college team entry? Until then, which is the preferred location? — ERcheck (talk) 23:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm guessing you're from the USA? Everywhere else in the world hardly any footballers ever go to college/university so it's never an issue, which is probably why it wasn't included in the template, and why I don't think it needs to be added to the master template. As to where it should be put if it does apply? Erm, I'm not sure to be honest, but personally I'd lean towards "senior clubs"...... ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I was updating U.S. Women's National team members. Most/all were on college teams prior to or when they were on the National team and competing in the World Cup and/or Olympics. — ERcheck (talk) 01:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
It shouldn't be difficult for an admin to add a section with the code:
{{#if: {{{collegeteam|<noinclude>-</noinclude>}}} | ! style="background: #b0c4de;" colspan="3" {{!}} College {{!}}- {{!}} {{{collegeyears}}} {{!}} colspan="2" {{!}} {{{collegeteam}}} {{!}}- }}
as exhibited (if you are quick) here. I would see no objection to including such a section where the college years are/were a meaningful part of the player's professional development (this might well only be Us/Canadian players, and the occasional other (eg Andrew Sambrook) who spent time there). The problem is the college often refers to an institute of secondary level education (11-16 years of age) and I think that there would be agreement that we do not want every player's school team listed. Kevin McE (talk) 19:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
In America, as far as I know, "college" is only ever used to refer to an institute of post-18 education, but if there was a field in the template specifically labelled "college", I could see well-meaning but misguided UK users editing articles to include the fact that Wayne Wayneson went to North Footown Sixth-form College or whatever...... ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
How about "University"? Though not post-secondary institutions are universities, would this prevent the confusion? — ERcheck (talk) 03:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
This would still not be really appropriate for the few UK (for example) based players who attended university before their professional careers, and although there would be less of them, it would still be open to the problem CtD has outlined. However, it would be a lesser problem, simply because so few European players attended university (or can spell the word). It was you who queried the lack of a college field: would you consider the terms interchangeable? Kevin McE (talk) 20:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] make playername optional

{{editprotected}}

This can be derived from the article name, if the article is located at the player's name (which it almost always is). Simply change:

{{{playername}}}

to

{{{playername|{{PAGENAME}}}}}

Chris Cunningham (talk) 11:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] add "conceded goals"

would it be possible to add conceded goals, or conceded goals per match, or saves to have some reasonable number for goalkeepers as well? --ThurnerRupert (talk) 12:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Conceded goals might be possible, although it's not exactly a commonly reported stat, however I've never seen any sort of course that gives info on "saves"..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
And goals conceded are always just the goalkeeper's fault, of course. - Dudesleeper Talk 16:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
There again, players credited with the goals often haven't had to do much to gain that stat, so that is scarcely the point. Goals conceded is not a frequently collated or quoted stat, so there is little or no merit in adding it just so that goalies do not have (usually) a blank. Kevin McE (talk) 18:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
This section is goalkeeper-centric, though, so I thought I'd make the point. - Dudesleeper Talk 19:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Karl Dickman's change to the box

Can somebody undo this please? It looks really, really messy what he has done to the name at the top. Its taken the top of the box off. - ForeverWhiteRose (talk) 20:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} This change wasn't discussed or the relevant project notified prior to implementation, and it should have been. And at this template talk it was suggested that infoboxes were moving away from using caption, not towards. Please could this be reverted, and if the editor still wants to do it, could he please discuss the matter first? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 20:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Apparently captions aren't well supported in many browsers, which I was not aware of at the time I made the edit. A shame, as this is exactly what they're meant for. Oh well. I reverted it. Karl Dickman talk 03:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Struway2 (talk) 06:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)