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]

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]

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]

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]

I've just updated the example infobox to be the one from Template talk:Infobox Football biography. I've done this because the difference was causing pointless bickering with new editors, and the one on this page was hopelessly out of date. Hope everyone is in agreement, cheers, aLii 15:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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]