Template talk:Infobox rugby league biography

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] hCard "role" property

Two users (or possibly one, not logged in the second time) have recently removed class="role" form this template. Neither bothered to say why, in an edit summary. The class forms part of the hCard microformat, and should not be removed, unless it can be shown that there is good reason to do so. Andy Mabbett 10:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Links on infobox

Should this infobox template be updated to include links for clubs and positions in the same way that the rugby union, soccer, cricket, etc templates link these items. As the infobox is often the first stop-off point for a new user, someone not familiar with the player or the sport this is meant to be linked. Noticed alot of these are being removed. Just want to test the water to put into the template to link these things as currently this template doesn't link anything, which is obviously wrong. Not a vote or anything but is there any reason not to actually put this down in writing, where previously it was the unwritten rule.Alexsanderson83 (talk) 06:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't know that it was ever an 'unwritten rule'. But I know that the written style guide on the Template:Infobox rugby league biography page states:
Linking of other entries is to be discouraged as most of these links will present themselves in the article's introduction; linking them in the infobox adds clutter and inhibits the speedy retrieval of facts.
For a three line article I don't see any problem leaving the infobox unlinked where all the same information is wikilinked in the three lines of text. It's all on the page in front of the reader. Wikilink the infobox as well and you are well and truly over the 10% of blue as per WP:MOSLINK. For a lengthy article where, for whatever reason, not all information is contained in the lede, then yes I'd wikilink some of the info in the infobox (not necessarily all). •Florrie•leave a note• 09:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Originally I basically just copied and used the football player infobox as a base for the new rugby league infobox (replacing the light blue boxes you might still see around, Marcus Bai). When first introduced I stuck to this Manual of Style of not linking in infoboxes and would even revert users who accidentally put links in the box. But after having had a think about it all, this seems a bit ludicrous given it is the first point of reference for any reader. I say we change the rules and not only allow, but encourage links to teams in the infobox. Whatever way we go on this, we should keep a standard one way or another, that is, have everything linked or everything unlinked. I am leaning towards the former. mdmanser (talk) 10:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
And not link in the text for short articles? •Florrie•leave a note• 10:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Good question. I would probably not link the normal text for short articles if we end up wikilinking in infoboxes, as per your point above. I don't mind. mdmanser (talk) 10:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Which would keep in mind the 10% blue, but it's more than likely that other editors would come along and wikilink the article, in good faith, and we are back to a page of blue. But the same thing could happen the other way with good faith wikilinking of the infobox, though less likely I'd expect. Either we adhere to the style guide already set or we discuss and change - whichever. •Florrie•leave a note• 10:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I would back having the infobox information linked. I would present Stephen Darby, a young Liverpool footballer who has a fairly short article but as per the football (soccer) infobox has the info linked, even linking the club three times. I would back the idea, but also use the 10% as a guideline. It is best to link the information and then add to the article rather than de-link certain areas.Londo06 10:25, 02 February 2008 (UTC)
Good example I think. Why don't we base our MOS on that article? mdmanser (talk)
Linking the same article three times in an infobox is a tad enthusiastic, and I can't see how that is a positive thing. And, off topic, but why are the pcupdate dates wikilinked in that infobox? •Florrie•leave a note• 10:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Dates must always be linked in Wikipedia so users can take advantage of how dates are shown in their browser window. If they are unlinked the Wikimedia software can't change it. mdmanser (talk) 10:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
In text, yes, but that doesn't make sense when you are talking about tildes. If we sign with the five tildes, wiki outputs the required date format, right? See the Template:Infobox Football biography page style guide - pcupdate signed with five tildes as the date stamp the same as the rugby league template. (Btw, Infobox Football also says not to wikilink in infoboxes so the Stephen Darby infobox doesn't actually follow the Football style guide.) Not that we can't change our template but it's good to have the right information. •Florrie•leave a note• 11:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tries

This really must be addressed. I've lost count of how many times I've brought it up, but tries and goals simply must be differentiated between on rugby league (and union for that matter, I suppose) players' articles. I don't know or care enough about templates to fix it, but now alot of players' pages that I created with tables in the body text detailing total tries and goals and for which club are being deleted in favour of a mere "points" total in the infobox. So information is being lost. But either way, it's quite obvious to me that this template which was lifted from soccer or basketball or something just isn't good enough for rugby (either code) players and should either be modified or replaced in favour of a more rugby-specific version. This is not soccer or basketball. Points totals are almost meaningless. Having the two separated enriches the information about the player in such a simple, no-fuss way. We can see instantly whether he was a goal kicker, e.g. Corey Parker, or a try-scoring machine, e.g. Steve Renouf, two players who both have high points totals but extremely different playing careers. Does no one else think that matters? I certainly do. The reason rugby league is the best game in the world is because it is try-oriented. Another fact that seems glaringly obvious to me. This is not rugby union. Goal totals take a back seat to try totals, not the other way around.--Jeff79 (talk) 02:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I know I have removed some points tables but I only did so after bringing it up on the project discussion pages [1]. As there was no objection expressed, I didn't realise it would be a problem. Sorry about that, Jeff. But I do agree that it would be more meaningful to have 'caps', 'tries', 'goals' listed next to each club entry in the infobox and possibly an overall points tally under these (rather than trying to squeeze points next to the club entry). A breakdown could be added to the article text but it would seem logical to have it in the infobox. •Florrie•leave a note• 03:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Sounds like a worthwhile task, ie to see what the break up of goals and tries are for fairly regular try scorers who also can kick at goal like Mat Rogers, Darren Lockyer, etc.Londo06 9:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, no worries Florrie. I'm just glad you guys see it the same way I do. If there's no way to put the separate totals in the infobox, the body text would have to do. But I think the infoboox would be best, just might make it too wide I suppose. D you guys know how to tinker with that? I might investigate some other sports' player infoboxes for ideas.--Jeff79 (talk) 10:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Missed this, sorry. No, I don't know much about these templates, Jeff. I think it's more SpecialWindler or Mdmansers's field? •Florrie•leave a note• 12:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New-style Infobox

I've spent a couple of hours this afternoon and late tonight assembling a new infobox which includes a few modifications on the current one. At the moment I've uploaded a near-complete version at Brad Fittler:

I took most of it from the newer cricket biography infobox, but with some very heavy modifications. The box isn't complete just yet - I am yet to add a few more parameters in, including representative team information and First Grade debut information. But I hope this addresses a few concerns regarding the breakdown of points, as well as one of my own involving a consistent width of the box across all player pages. It will also make it easier to modify the infobox style in the future as well. For the moment, DO NOT use the new style just yet on any other pages until we have consensus that this is what we want to use in the future. Cheers all, mdmanser (talk) 13:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I've now finished both the debut and team breakdown settings for both representative and domestic (club) sections. The coaching section still needs to be done, but this is pretty much the vision I had for the new infobox for a player. One thing that I could suggest we change is the ordering of the debut and the team areas under each section, so that debuts are listed first. The topic of linking is also something that must be discussed further. mdmanser (talk) 14:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Excellent. I had my eye on that cricket one but never got around to modifying it myself. One thing might be the guys concerned with rugby union. Once they see this they'll probably wanna jump on too. I understand there was a bit of collaboration going on before to incorporate the two rugbys into the one player infobox and I wonder if it'll be a big hassle to do so with this one too.--Jeff79 (talk) 15:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I think I like it. Just trying to absorb it all. Got a few questions but I'll wait for the completed draft. One that you can probably answer now though - will all the existing templates have to be replaced manually? •Florrie•leave a note• 16:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Just a small thing, but I might go for "Position" rather than "Role". Sometimes it is referred to as the "team's coaching position", so I don't think it neglects coaches to use 'position'.--Jeff79 (talk) 16:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Jeff - I took note of that and fixed it straight away. Position is certainly more of a rugby league term than "role".
Florrie - all of the existing templates will probably need to be changed, especially in terms of the points fields. I don't think this is avoidable unfortunately.
Et alii - just take note of the current positioning of the debut and last match fields across the two different sections. Would these better be positioned under one separate heading, or perhaps chronologically interconnected with team information? Perhaps they'd look better before the team information rather than after it. Any ideas? mdmanser (talk) 17:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Hate to be a party pooper, but my immediate impression is that I would prefer not to have the first/last detail within the infobox. With some (many) players there isn't a heap of verifiable (detailed) information to actually write about and their SOO/Test debut etc is about as good as it gets with article text. Just concerned that some articles will be all infobox and not a lot else. But it's 2.30 and I should probably take a fresh look at it tomorrow. Cheers, •Florrie•leave a note• 17:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec):While you are digging around in there - this applies to the current infobox, as well as the proposed one, but is there a chance the as of (for the points update etc) can be changed to either current at or simply updated? As of has a slightly different meaning - this bank will close as of 10 March - from this date forward. Just something that bugs me everytime I see the infobox. •Florrie•leave a note• 17:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I was just about to type something about the first and last match dates too. Basically I'm all for that info appearing. It's good and interesting to see. Just not sure if the infobox is the place. But I'm not really fussed. Just happy to see tries now being treated way they should in pretty much all RL-related content on wikipedia. I think it makes a big difference and communicates something very important about this game.--Jeff79 (talk) 17:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
UPDATE - I've just removed all the remnants of the old cricket biography box and have changed the infobox to accommodate for 90% of suggestions put forward here. I've removed all of the debut information, even though I think it should be included anyway in some shape or form (it is unlikely that it will appear in the text of most articles, yet it is historically important) and I've also removed the coaching and referee sections too for the time being. Again, check Brad Fittler for what is pretty much a complete example now.
The only thing that needs to be discussed before this template is released into the project is whether or not all of you believe the template fields are worthy and suitable, i.e. playername, countryofbirth, teamA, and if not, what can be renamed, added or removed.
Once this template is released I intend for it to be run under the same link alongside the current one. A template switch will be incorporated into the coding in order for this to work.
Please leave your thoughts, comments and further suggestions. mdmanser (talk) 13:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't believe the new version should automatically replace the existing template that is essentially from the same stable as cricket, rugby union, football, etc. ones. Linked to that is my concern over the colour. I think it is a worthy addition when cleaning up goal kickers. Will wait for the completed version, great work so far. School and University is a worthy addition plus the whole coaching element.Londo06 14:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Added a section on other clubs, obviously does not automatically appear. Seemed there was a demand for it. Alexsanderson83 (talk) 20:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)