Template talk:Infobox golfer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Purpose

{{infobox golfer}} — An infobox about a golfer that is associated with the Wikipedia:WikiProject Golfers.

[edit] Discussion

Contents

[edit] Additional fields

This template is very small and is probably missing many other required and optional fields. Feel free to recommend changes and add to this template. David D. (Talk) 00:50, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

As stated below, it is actually too large. It will take up a lot of space. If we are to have this (and I'm not convinced we should as there are major problems making it match up with the diversity of golf careers around the world) it should not attempt to duplicate a lot of the information in the articles (a large number of which I wrote). Osomec 15:11, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
I added a height field into the template. Following the proposed rules of the template, it applies to all golfers. I don't think adding weight would be useful as most media guides have incorrect information and I doubt the LPGA will ever list weight. Clutchworld, 2006-10-18 T 01:42 UTC.
I think weight should be added, after all, official sites and the wikipedia tennis pages all have weight listed for men and women. Supertigerman 22:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Golf exists off of the PGA Tour

This template is looking terribly U.S. centric. I have changed "pro" to "professional" as "pro golfer" is American English. Infoboxes on Wikipedia tend to be far too big relative to the text so I think the height and weight should be dropped (the latter is unreliable and prone to change). A lot more thought needs to be given to how this can be made to reflect the global range of golf. Perhaps there should be separate templates for each tour, but some players play on more than one. I've been by far the most active contributor on golf over the last year, and if others are going to start doing more that is welcome, but please don't implement this infobox until is has been improved. Osomec 14:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Problems with the template

I've been thinking about this some more and as I see it we can either:

  • Create a whole bunch of templates, basically on a tour by tour basis. I don't think this will work because it will be very hard to allow for all the different combinations of tours which individual golfers have spent time on, which amounts to dozens of possible combinations.
  • Simplify it further. This means just listing each golfer's current tour or tours and total professional wins (we can't really even list PGA Tour wins and European Tour wins separately as majors and WGC events count twice so for some golfers European Tour wins + PGA Tour wins > total professional wins, which will look silly and confuse those unfamiliar the global structure of golf - which probably includes almost everyone in the United States). A breakdown could perhaps be given in brackets, showing the number of wins the golfer has on his main tour, eg. "Profesional wins= 10 (7 on European Tour)". I will be posting a modified template later. Osomec 15:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

All good points Osomec. You're changes make the template much more versatile. David D. (Talk) 17:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please don't add anything that isn't relevant to all or nearly all golfers

Women golfers don't have world rankings. Nor do golfers who played before 1986. That's a very high proportion of the articles, so I am going to remove the world ranking box that has been added to the template. Also, if the template is added to any significant number of articles, there is little to no chance of the rankings being kept up to date. It is much better to add general comments on player's ranking records and to link to Official World Golf Rankings so that readers who don't already know about them can find their own way to the official site, which is always up to date. Osomec 22:59, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Can I put WGR back?

With the Rolex Rankings in town, can I put wgr back and just put retired for people who played before 1986 or are ancient now? WriterFromAfar755 01:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think having a box for current rankings would work. The rankings change every week and the boxes most likelt won't get updated often enough, especially if infoboxes are added to a lot of articles. A "Career high ranking" might work if the official ranking sites disclosed it, but they don't so that probably wouldn't be maintained accurately either. Calsicol 02:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of family details

The PGA Tour's official profiles no longer give family details and there is no other reliable source. I never thought it was worthwhile tracking divorces and new babies anyway and I am going to delete that line. The information can always be given in the article if it is available and anyone wants to add it. Osomec 09:45, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The "Results in Majors" Table

The major results table is useful for its at-a-glance impact, but it is visually busy, in my opinion, with every cell in the table filled. I would like to offer a suggestion: replace "DNP" (did not play) with a simple "-". The dash is visually distinct from finishing-position numerals, and would allow the 3-letter "CUT" to stand out.

For example, here is the way Retief Goosen's results now appear (minus graphics)...

Tournament 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 The Masters DNP DNP DNP DNP DNP CUT DNP T40 CUT 2 T13 U.S. Open DNP DNP DNP DNP DNP CUT CUT T12 1 CUT T42 British Open CUT DNP DNP 75 T10 CUT T10 T41 T13 T8 T10 PGA Championship DNP DNP DNP DNP T61 CUT CUT CUT T37 T23

And here is what I propose...

Tournament 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 The Masters - - - - - CUT - T40 CUT 2 T13 U.S. Open - - - - - CUT CUT T12 1 CUT T42 British Open CUT - - 75 T10 CUT T10 T41 T13 T8 T10 PGA Championship - - - - T61 CUT CUT CUT T37 T23

Cleaner, yes?

[edit] Major Results

My apologies... did not realize that I would lose the formatting when I saved the comment. - CHC

[edit] Reduce image size?

Excuse the ignorant question, but is there a way to adapt the template for use with a smaller image? The only way I've been able to use it, images that are smaller automatically size up to 200 pixels, degrading in the process. Thanks for your help. Crunch 00:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Majors and awards

The majors and awards sections in the infobox appear bunched up. Unlike the tennis infobox, the golf one has the names of the majors and the awards listed on the right side, with the years next to them also on the right side. I would highly recommend putting a heading "Majors" or "Major Championships" centered, with the names of the 4 majors on the left side, and the player's best finish in that major on the right side. I believe this would make it more organized and easier on the eyes if one wants a quick snapshot of a player's major championship performance.
Similarly, I would recommend putting the awards names on the left side (and centering "Awards" above it) followed by the years won on the right side. At the moment, these simply look too clustered. Supertigerman 02:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Height field & Majors and awards

I've added the height field where it was previously missing on the empty syntax on this page and the main infobox page, and also to the example using Tiger Woods. Previously, when people copied and pasted the old empty syntax and filled it in, the height field was missing and consequently not filled in properly in the infobox. This should now no longer be the case as the height field is now properly included.

Also, I would like to agree with the previous comment on the majors and awards section of the infobox. For players with multiple majors and awards it is very bunched up and looks a lot better in Supertigerman's infobox. The example on how to use the infobox using Tiger Woods looks an absolute mess because there are so many things bunched up on the same side of the box. I think the infobox should be made to look more like Supertigerman's version, and then it can become the standard one for all golfers as there are at least two different ones being used at the moment. Christophee 21:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Minor changes

I've adjusted serveral fields in the infobox - autolinking dates isn't very practical, and prevents use of {{Birth date and age}}.

On a side note, is there any reason why this template is only used in a handfull of articles? PC78 19:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I also took the liberty of changing the green colour used in the infobox. It was hard to read the black text on the darker green. PC78 00:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)