Template:WPF navigation

We should find a way to add Template:Football player infobox in here... Looks good.

Any ideas?

--Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 17:07, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oops sorry, I just noticed I should have discussed here before I made my changes, but it can be easily removed, can't it? Feel free to modify the bullshit I wrote I'm not full of imagination at this point. Cheers, Julien Tuerlinckx 20:26, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think there needs to be a consensus on the the way positions are written in the infoboxes. Some are written as "Centre/Right/Left Back", others "Centre Back, Right Back, Left Back", others are just left as "Defender". Also, maybe if there were two categories, one for main position and one for others? Any thoughts? Quincy042 (talk) 17:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A standard way of doing it is a good idea. Maybe using a standard code, like D C for a central defender, M R for a right midfielder, etc. Either that or use a standard layout like "Centre/Right/Left Back". I think a single position section is sufficient really. Dos this suggestion sound like a good idea? Bloc rock (talk) 17:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why has this been removed from the player profile? Whilst it isn't used by English speaking countries., most footballers in Europe have a nickname by which the press call them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.12.66.129 (talk • contribs)

See here. - Dudesleeper · Talk 17:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As it is now, clubs are both listed in the template to the right and as a list in the text the info becomes redundant, would it be an idea to delete the list in the text? Perhaps placing an "Honours" section somewhere instead/too? Poulsen 20:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a good idea. Modified. -- Elisson • Talk 21:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite embarrassed by the way people are modifying the order of the cats for footballers: they sort it by alphabetical order (which is the policy for general articles, I guess) while I would prefer to have some special policy for footballers. To me, the cats should be in this order:

1. birth year
2. "other" cats (living people, natives from...), by alphabetical order
3. country (e.g. english footballers)
4. position (e.g. football (soccer) striker)
5. clubs by chronological order (e.g. Arsenal F.C. players)
6. manager (if needed, with managed clubs like for player)
7. death year

Any comment welcome. And by the way, if someone adds something like West Ham F.C. midfielders, then the player should not have the cat West Ham F.C. players, which is redundant. Julien Tuerlinckx 18:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree on the order, almost. :) I use birth, "other", death, country (player), position, player clubs (chronological), country (manager), manager clubs (chronological). The only difference being how I place the year of death. I too dislike people (mostly bots) rearranging the categories. -- Elisson • Talk 18:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

where do you put the history of the player, there is no history category Philc 0780 21:23, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? History category? I don't really understand what you mean? Would you care to explain a little more on what you mean? – Elisson • Talk 22:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

for example on the article on Ronaldinho there is about 4 or 5 paragraphs on his history,but this isnt on the template...Philc 0780 22:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a standard in place for when an athlete shares a name with another person who has a Wikipedia article? Should it be Antonio Martinez (footballer) or Antonio Martinez (soccer player) since he is American? Help please...--Rockero 01:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Goood question. Shame nobody answered it last time, as I was here to try and find out the same. --kingboyk (talk) 18:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The simple answer is - there is no simple answer! Generally I would use the style Antonio Martinez (footballer) but as an Englishman who can't abide the term "Soccer" I would. I guess if Antonio is American, then Antonio Martinez (soccer player) would be more appropriate. I got my wrist slapped earlier this year for moving several articles from "soccer player" to "footballer". I hope this helps but I'm not sure it does. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 19:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Current (most recent) club on top or on bottom? Does anybody care?

I've seen both.

With the youth teams hardcoded on top, it seems most logical to start with the earliest professional club on top. Poulsen 18:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Asked this on the Alessandro Del Piero article, but I'll ask here too. Number of goals listed in the player infoboxes - should it be goals in all competitions, or just league goals? --Bigdottawa 21:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just league goals. --Daduzi ^talk 13:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does that include playoff goals?Rballou 22:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Probably, since playoffs are technically part of the league season (rather than a separate cup) though I can't be 100% sure on that. --Daduzi ^talk 07:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In official goal charts Playoff goals don't count towards a players final league total. An example, ex Derby striker Steve Howard is listed as having 16 league goals last season in all offical statistics, though if his two playoff goals are counted it would take his total up to 18 AnOrdinaryBoy (talk) 12:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should player pages have stats? I have noticed some players (ex. Petr Cech) have some stat information. I think it is a good addition, but I wasn't sure if it fit in the scope of these articles. Rballou 18:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have created some templates for creating a stat box for regular players (positions other than goalkeepers). These are my first templates, so let me know if there are anythings that should change: Template:fbplayerstatstart --Rballou 22:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the template to Template:football playerstat start. I have used it on a few MLS players, for example: Nick Garcia -- Rballou 19:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a nice template, but the existence of the "playoff" field makes it of limited use outside of the US (where playoffs, if they exist, are usually just one or two games to decide promotion/relegation). Perhaps it might be an idea to make the playoffs field hidden by default, unless there's something in it (though that could be tricky), or create a new template for non-MLS players. --Daduzi ^talk 07:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am open to what needs to change for players outside of the US. Some problems I see even for players in the US:

1. The "Domestic Cup" heading. If a player has competed in a European league and the MLS, the "Domestic Cup" would be different and the stats should arguably not be mingled.
2. I have made the template so you can rename the "Domestic Cup" (to "US Open Cup", for example), but I don't know if this is a good idea or not.
3. If a league has more competitions than "Playoffs", "Domestic Cup", and "Continental Cup" then the template also would currently be limited.

I will take a look at how to handle the playoff situation over the next week or so. Thanks for your input. -Rballou 14:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

==Infobox updat

How about creating a section that describes their playing style - I know that it can easily become POV. e.g Rooney - A deep lying forward who likes to drop into midfield to collect the ball and start the play from there. (Obviously it would be elaborated a bit more).82.69.40.37

The proposed template is opposed to the guideline at WP:DATE#Dates of birth and death and at WP:MOSBIO, which states that the birthplace goes in the body, not in the opening sentence. I do not see any reason to change these two guidelines for footballers; these are, in fact, biographies. I have had a complaint from an editor who is trying to follow this proposed template, but a proposal does not override established guidelines. I suggest that the template for footballers be changed to conform to the existing guidelines. Chris the speller 17:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and do the changes needed. This is a wiki after all. ;) – Elisson • T • C • 18:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the invitation; I have taken you up on it, and have added a biography section to the template. In addition to providing a hook from which to hang the birthplace, it can house other items of human interest. Chris the speller 23:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is the difference between these two fields? Are they duplicates?--Panarjedde 18:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think they're exactly the same. If anything should be done, the big bolded letters should be gone. Not the full name. Kingjeff 18:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If they are not the same, why are you filling them with the same content? If the player is name John Smith, why you need to write it twice? The only reason why the fields are there is in case the name of the player and his full name differ, such as in Ronaldo case, but when they are the same the second field is redundant.--Panarjedde 18:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said. it should be the big bolded letters that should be deleted. Not the fullname. Whats the point of the be bolded letters to begin with? Kingjeff 19:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anyone else reading this?--Panarjedde 19:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Give people a chance to see this. Kingjeff 19:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean the fields in the infobox, they are not duplicates. The playername is what the player is usually called, be it Ronaldo or Henrik Larsson. The fullname is the player's birthname or full name, be it Ronaldo Luis Nazário de Lima or Henrik Edward Larsson. These two fields are almost never the same, as players usually don't go by their complete birthname, but in case the article creator does not know the full birthname, I'd prefer to see the fullname field be left blank to not make the reader of the article believe that the player was not given a middle name at birth. Although I do not believe that it is very important, and going around removing such entries is a little overkill. – Elisson • T • C • 19:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What if the player's name and full name are the same? Not everybody has a middle name. In that case the field should go blank, right? Also, it would be nice to have the opinion of someone not "called" by my "friend" above. Is this project active or not?--Panarjedde 12:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elisson sums it up pretty well. If the names are the same then I can't see that it matters either way. Give people a chance to answer, its less than 24h since the thread started and its the weekend. Generally speaking though, the main project talk page it the quickest place to get a response because less people have the subpages on their watchlists. Oldelpaso 12:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is: is it ok to remove the "fullname", if it is the same as "playername"? I think that, when they are duplicates, it is un-necessary to repeat the information, and thus I remove "fullname"; Kingjeff thinks it is opportune to keep both, or, if it is the case, to remove "playername".

As regards my request for opinions, it is due to the fact that my edits were reverted, and I was asked to come here to discuss, but here I received (befor yours) only the answer of my reverter and of a user who was called by my reverter; it looks like this was not the right place to discuss the matter.--Panarjedde 14:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we should remove fullname if it is the same as playername in cases where the player didn't get a middle name. It is an important piece of information for readers, telling them that the player's birthname is exactly the same as the name they use. When the fullname and playername is the same, but the editors don't know wether or not the player was given a middle name, I think it is ok to remove fullname to not confuse readers, but I don't consider it very important.

On the question on where to post, it is generally a good idea to at least add a note on the main project talk page that a discussion has been started elsewhere (as Oldelpaso says, most members don't have subpages on their watchlist). Regarding me being "called here" by Kingjeff, I can assure you that I and Kingjeff have had a few arguments over the time and that I in no way "defend" him all the time or anything like that, I just tell what I think, and in this case, I happen to agree with him. – Elisson • T • C • 14:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that no middle name is showed means that there is not middle name. If there is no "fullname" field, that means that either we do not know of any middle name, or the middle name does not exists.

As regards "callings", I hope you agree it is quite a coincidence he calls you here and you agree with him...--Panarjedde 14:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I still think we should keep the fullname parameter if the player has no middle name to remove the ambiguity between knowing there is no middle name, and not knowing if there is a middle name. I suggest using three different cases: 1) The player has a common name, and and extra birthnames on that, use both playername and fullname, 2) The player has a common name, and no extra birthnames on that, use both playername and fullname, 3) The player has a common name, and any extra birthnames are unknown, use only playername. That way there is no ambiguity.

As said, me and Kingjeff aren't best friends. How would he know that I would (partially) agree with him? Is it possible that he called me here because I am one of the more active members (and the founder) of the WikiProject? I'd find that much more likely than any of your theories. – Elisson • T • C • 16:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The fact is you're trying to override the opinion of a an entire WikiProject. If you mean the fields in the infobox, they are not duplicates. Johan Elisson summed it up. The playername is what the player is usually called, be it Ronaldo or Henrik Larsson. The fullname is the player's birthname or full name, be it Ronaldo Luis Nazário de Lima or Henrik Edward Larsson. These two fields are almost never the same, as players usually don't go by their complete birthname. Kingjeff 14:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not really understand if you are serious or not. The matter is the following, please answer to this question and let's end it. Michael Ballack has no middle name, so "playername" and "fullname" are the same: is it forbidden to remove the duplicated "fullname" field?--Panarjedde 14:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But the fact is that Michael Ballack does have a middle name. It's just that we don't know what it is. Lets drop it as it doesn't really matter over a minor issue like that. Kingjeff 14:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

??? Can you give any reference for this claim? And if he has a middle name, why are you writing that his "fullname" is Michael Ballack? And if you think that is a minor issue, why are you reverting my edits?--Panarjedde 14:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen (and added myself) players' career totals to infoboxes (see Alan Shearer, for example) and wondered if the line should be added to the template on the project page. I'm not too keen on listing the players' career span to the left of the totals (as seen in Shearer's article), however. - Dudesleeper · Talk 14:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed this from the template example, as there is no consensus here for it as yet. robwingfield ^«T•C» 23:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be best to have this only for retired players, as otherwise the total will need to be continually re-calculated each time? --Jameboy (talk) 18:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree with that. If we're going to have a total line at all then it makes sense to only use it for retired players. Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 18:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems every article uses a different style in listing a player's honours. There is only 1 featured article about a player (Gilberto Silva) so I have used that style in most of my edits, but I think other styles look better (for example the one at Pavel Pardo. Now it is probably a minor issue, but when a player has won a lot of trophies, I think it makes the article look better if we have some standardized (and aesthetically pleasing) format for listing them... any thoughts? ugen64 07:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the template as currently displayed is fine (with possible exception or wikilink on club name as they are all linked in the info box already). More to the point is where to draw the line at 'awards', particularly individual awards. Some of these players with idol worshippers have things like "PFA fans player of the month" and obscure awards from gossip magazines. Cristiano Ronaldo even has a 'runner up' award from a magazine fan vote (and inconsistant - he won the 'readers sexiest player of the year' from a certain well known non-hetrosexual mag, and that isn't even noted!). Criteria specified anywhere? --ClubOranje (talk) 09:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Man-of-the-match accolades. List them in honours sections or not? - Dudesleeper / Talk 19:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe one flag in player's infobox, right before the City/Country of birth is more than enough for a football player. I have cleaned up many players as in (for example Sergio Goycochea) by doing:
| cityofbirth = {{flagicon|Argentina}} [[Buenos Aires]]
| countryofbirth = [[Argentina]]
What is the consensus? Is that OK? Alexf(t/c) 01:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see this has been discussed in parent page: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football so I'm moving the comments there. Please disregard. Alexf(t/c) 14:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to open the discussion about flag icons again (a user keeps adding them to the birth country of Bacary Sagna). After searching through the archives of Wikipedia:WikiProject Football I found a discussion here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 12#Flags in infoboxes which is a little inconclusive. Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Players shows no flag icons at all. According to WP:FLAGS#Not for use in locations of birth and death flag icons should not be used for locations of birth and death. So, what is the general opinion on this? My interpretation is that flag icons do not belong in infoboxes. --Jaellee (talk) 22:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They should not be used, in my view, and I do not see any agreed consensus here nor on WT:WPF on including them, so as per the existing template & manual of style they should not be used. I will continue to roll back such uses, as per WP:FLAG's recommendation to not use them in locations of places of birth. Qwghlm (talk) 00:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've begun to see quite a bit of use of italics in the infobox, particularly the player's name and for (loan). What's the correct style on either of these cases or any other italics in the infobox. Peanut4 11:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can we please avoid the conjecture about what club is interested/linked to/has been watching who, particularly around trtansfer windows. Most of the so called links are from gossip rags which are notoriously unreliable, and only about 5% of reported possible transfers actually happen. Fact is that all serious teams are watching all serious players with a view to buying them potentially. Just because a few possibles are mentioned in 'news of the world' or wherever, doesn't make them true. filling up profiles with endless links to clubs and quotes from clubs or players about where they may go is non encyclopedic. --T (talk) 10:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Football Project‑class

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball articles Project This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Hi. I am currently in discussions with another editor over representation of player loan details in infoboxes. I am quite sure that, after a loan arrangement has been agreed, due to the contractual arrangements of a player, his displayed Current club should still be that which holds his registration.

Case in point is Greg Halford, Sunderland A.F.C.→Charlton Athletic F.C., January 31 2008. The editor has altered my edit to show Charlton as the dominant Current club (with the adjunct on loan from Sunderland placed below it), even though his Senior clubs record clearly shows the loan arrangement as being acknowledged. In a loan arrangement (not "transfer", as that is taken to mean full transfer of registration with the appropriate FA from one club to another), the player's contract still belongs to the parent club, and the player can be recalled at any time, without any legal regard to the loan club, who cannot protest or withhold the player from returning.

It's therefore my belief that Wikipedia should follow the legal standpoint, and still show the contract holder as the Current club. I also believe that the squad template on the player's page should be that of his parent club, with the loan club's template below it. In the case illustrated above, the Sunderland template has been wiped. A quick reply would be appreciated, including any previous test cases where consensus was established either way. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 21:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with the other editor on this one. The current club should be the club which currently holds the players registration even if this is temporary. Taking your case in point, Greg Halford is currently registered with Charlton, and as such is illegible to play for Sunderland unless and until he is recalled. It is also worth noting that not all loan agreements give the parent club the right to recall a player before the agreed termination date of the loan; Leon Clarke's recent loan deal with Southend United was one such example. Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 21:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think it would be wise to add months to the years in the history? Especially with players turned manager, I find it helpful to know when exactly a contract ended or the person was fired. I experimented with this on Norbert Meier and while the template does support dates in the form MM/YYYY, the box gets a bit wide. Ideas, opinions? --Madcynic (talk) 14:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this page is a traditional one to get a lot of replies, possibly try the WP:FOOTYtalk page. However I don't think it's a good idea at all. The infobox is only there as a guide to the article. I would add the months to the main article. Peanut4 (talk) 21:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have created an external link template to FIFA records for international players (added to player style page template) usage is: Fifa Player|id=161454|name=David Beckham , which, when used with wiki template brackets ({{ .. }}) gives eg:

• Pele – FIFA competition record (archived)--ClubOranje (talk) 13:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The articles on footballers, especially the FIFA 100 and otherreally notable players shouldhave playing style sections. It should be fairly easy to find sources, as football is written about daily in most of Europe and South America, and players like Di Stefano and Pele have had books written about them. It would serve to enlighten the reader as to how a certain player goes about his game and what have been recoginised as his strengths and weaknesses. Thoughts? Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 14:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]