Template talk:Infobox basketball biography/Archive 1

Overview

This template in intended to create an infobox suitable for all NBA players. It is similar in style to Template:Infobox University2 and Template:Infobox Company on purpose. I believe that previous infoboxes were either too cluttered with too much information or were not aesthetically pleasing. I also believe that WP will benefit from having minimal structural and stylistic uniformity across articles of the same subject and across all articles in general. --gurulegend 02:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Pages that link here

Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Infobox_NBA_Player

Height and Weight

Downwards, please stop reverting the template back to old style height and weight. We're trying to use template:height and template:weight to bring nice automated unit conversion to the infobox.

To accomodate pages that have simple heights and weights, I've made the template accept either {{height}} and {{weight}} or {{height_ft}}, {{height_in}}, and {{weight_lb}}. --gurulegend 02:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Former teams

Hello. Currently, when the "Former teams" parameter is set, a label of "Teams" appears on the displayed Infobox, instead of "Former teams." It seems that this should be changed so that "Former teams" is displayed in the Infobox. I wanted to discuss here, first, though, to see if others objected, find out what would break if this was changed, etc. Lbbzman 23:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Lbbzman, I had it as "Former teams", but changed it because I was really thinking about retired players. "Former teams" will work for them (e.g. Jordan's former teams were the bulls and wizards, they are not his teams now). I don't really know what I was thinking, but I'm down for "Former teams." --gurulegend 01:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Image Sizes

This conversation is from my talk page. I've added it here because I think it is pertinent. --gurulegend 01:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I see you've added the unit calculators to the template. I've given it a bit of an overhaul, including converting to m:ParserFunctions, which have obsoleted both {{qif}} and HiddenStructure. Unfortunately, attempting to mix wikitable code and parser functions gets rather confusing due to unintended interpretation of the pipe character "|" so I converted it to straight html, and it should work exactly the same as before, with one non-trivial change to the image syntax. This is partly to prevent certain different articles from having drastically different image sizes. The image on the LeBron article was previously 364 pixels tall, but I changed it so that the sizing of all the images is controlled within the template itself. If necessary though, it would still be possible to create a parameter for overriding the default size specification, by changing:

...|200x250px|...]] to

...|{{{image_size|200x250px}}}|...]]

But I don't see any immediate need to add that feature. Let me know if you disagree. By the way, in case you didn't know, specifying two dimensions (instead of just the width) for an image's size will force it to scale down to fit within an imaginary box. This is helpful to prevent disproportionately tall infobox images from dominating the entire right side of the screen. — Jun. 5, '06 [09:56] <freak|talk>

Nice. I think as long as all images seem to appear with decent dimensions and proportions, the template will be great. --gurulegend 20:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, the only real problem I forsee, is people attempting to use some really low-resolution images, which will look ugly if stretched too far beyond their actual size. Such images would be better off deleted in my opinion. — Jun. 5, '06 [20:45] <freak|talk>

Multiple Nationalities

This conversation is from my talk page. I've added it here because I think it is pertinent. --gurulegend 01:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Another question regarding the infobox, since the nationality/flag template has been added, is how best to handle cases like Shawn Bradley, who has dual citizenship in both Germany and the United States, perhaps an optional nationality_2 parameter and show two flags on separate rows? Which do you think looks better:

Nationality	Germany United States
or...
Nationality	/ Germany/United States

— Jun. 5, '06 [22:14] <freak|talk>

I think two rows looks better. Don't want those boxes getting too wide. --gurulegend 01:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shawn_Bradley&oldid=57108603 Not bad, then? — Jun. 6, '06 [02:32] <freak|talk>

Can I rip this off?

To Template:Infobox PBA player? (PBA=Philippine Basketball Association)

Nice work, btw. --Howard the Duck 07:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes.

--gurulegend 01:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Can I use this for Croatian Wikipedia? --Deveen 21:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Pro career

(Almost) all foreign players were already professional before arriving to the NBA, what is the Pro career intended for? NBA or overall? I've seen it used mostly for NBA carerr, but if so, the caption should be changed to reflect that. See for instance Carlos Delfino Mariano(t/c) 07:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I read it to be the latter, so I have changed the information in Tony Parker to reflect that. ¿ςפקιДИτς! ☺ ☻ 03:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

NBA Records

Several other pro sports infoboxes have a spot for records. Thoughts? - Raetzsch 14:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

We could add records, but we can't let the box get too large. I think adding an optional parameter for records would be ok. --gurulegend 01:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Template flagcountry2 instead of flagcountry

I've changed the template to use the new template:flagcountry2. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Flag Template/January 2007 rework. --Ligulem 13:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

And switched back to Template:Flagcountry again now that they are identical and flagcountry2 will be deprecated. Andrwsc 16:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Flagicon for "Nationality" should stay (for now, at least)

The reason why I reverted is because the recent change to this infobox has meant that the flagicon for "Nationality" was "made redundant". This is turn has made the redirections for country codes such as "LTU" (Lithuania) and "CAN" (Canada) stay as is. And when one clicks on LTU, one does not get Lithuania, but instead a disambiguation page. I've also seen some people now change nationality from, example "France" to "French", which is just great, but it creates inconsistencies. If this is allowed, does that mean we have to change all American NBA players' nationalities from "USA" or "United States" to "American"? This is a gross waste of time and resources. I have restored it back to what it was, prior to the 13th June (or whenever). If someone's got a better idea, put it forth - thanks. --Downwards 04:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

What exactly is the problem? If the wrong names are used in the infobox, they can be changed rather than continuing this inappropriate use of images. —Centrx→talk • 07:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem is you're not the one who's going to go around performing all these proposed changes, are you? It's the work of others. Extra work that in my opinion is needless. You have not clearly evinced your reasons about why you deem the flagicons to be inappropriate. Just stating "inappropriate" is insufficient. As I said above, if you can implement a better idea, please do! A simple removal of the flagicon is not a solution. --Downwards 22:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Like everything else on the wiki, these changes will happen naturally over time. A bot can also be created to do them. Conversely, using the current formatting requires anyone who uses this template to look up often bizarre and unintuitive country abbreviations. Inasmuch as the abbreviations are a temporary problem to readability, they should never have been used in the first place because they require anyone editing these articles to use the unnatural abbreviations. And what is the purpose of using those unnatural abbreviations? To add inappropriate images to the templates. The flag requirement is what creates extra work. —Centrx→talk • 02:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, what is the point of this field anyway? Is it anything other than a duplicate of the birthplace information? I haven't seen a single instance where the factoid was actually sourced, and if it were sourced it would read "Citizenship". Is there any reason not to simply remove the field altogether? —Centrx→talk • 07:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I cannot comment on why the field (I assume you are referring to "Nationality") is present as I did not create the infobox. But I take it that because a player's nationality is relevant, it's information. And an infobox is a box that contains just that — information! The reason why you are adamant on removing it is arbitrary as you are overwhelmingly in the minority.--Downwards 22:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The nationality remains. The only thing that does not remain is the flag. The flag is the issue; nationality and the superficiality of infobox factoids is a separate issue. —Centrx→talk • 02:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Add to the protected site

This is an interwiki to the Macedonian Wikipedia's corresponding article: mk:Шаблон:Информациона кутија за НБА играч

Done. —Centrx→talk • 20:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Nationality

I had to unlink the "Nationality" field, because the common terms for most nationalities do not link directly to articles about that nationality, but rather to disambiguation pages -- see American, German, etc. I also updated the /doc example to show the correct method of linking an individual's nationality. --Russ (talk) 21:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

How about not using the wrong term "Nationality = American" and instead using "US American"? America is a continent and two thirds of its population is NOT "US American". --Che010 (talk) 21:21, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Nickname parameter

Do we really need this field in the infobox? And at the top of the box at that? I remember nicknames were removed from {{Infobox Football biography}} because there was a tendency for overkill, and nicknames, unlike other infobox parameters like height and place of birth, are fluid and the notability can be questionable. For example, Vince Carter has seven listed - "Air Canada" is no longer relevant, "Half Man, Half Season" is an insult based on a nickname, he hasn't been called "Vinsanity" in years, and "VC" are his initials and I'm not sure if they really qualify as a nickname. If a nickname is truly notable, i.e. "Shaq" then it can be mentioned in the text. Otherwise, something as subjective and arguable as nickname shouldn't be in the article, let alone in the infobox. --Mosmof (talk) 15:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Based on lack of interest/objections, I have decided to be WP:BOLD and make the edit. --Mosmof (talk) 06:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

There is a need for the nickname, because often players get called only by their nicknames by the TV announcers, such as Glen Davis, who is always called "Big Baby". ● 8~Hype ^@ 17:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, if the nickname is notable enough, why not just mention it in the text? Why are we treating a fluid, often arbitrary quality the same way we treat truly objective and (more or less) permanent attributes? --Mosmof (talk) 22:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

8-Hype, I wish you hadn't re-inserted the parameter without discussing it here. Let me see if I can do a better job of explaining why it really doesn't belong in the infobox:

1. The Glen Davis example you cite is really an exception that proves the rule - he is a rare player whose nickname is so strongly tied to his identity. For most players, nicknames are used, if at all, in passing.
2. There's no standard for nicknames - you can argue about a player's real height (we all know Garnett isn't 6'11" and Iverson is shorter than his listed 6'0"), but each player has an official listed height, and that's what the media, and by extension Wikipedia, goes by. NBA doesn't have a similar standard for nicknames.
3. Some nicknames are more important than others. We agree that "Big Baby" is closely identified with Glen Davis, but the association isn't so strong that it's not a semi-official like "Magic Johnson" or "Nenê". The problem is, there's no metric to determine the importance of nicknames, except for the above "official" nicknames.
4. Some players have many nicknames. Some players have none that's widely used. Again, there's no standard to determine which is the most important nickname, or whether a nickname is important enough to cite. "Air Canada" was widely used early in Vince Carter's career, but that's obviously not his nickname any more. Michael Jordan has gone by "MJ" or "Air" or "Mike" or "His Airness" or "G.O.A.T.". Amare Stoudemire has his S.T.A.T., but who really uses that? And is the "Hellboy" notable just because that's what Charles Barkley called him, even though it's hardly used?

To be clear, the answers to the questions above aren't that important. The point I'm trying to make is that infobox items are objective, inarguable facts that are easily verifiable, and you can't say that about nicknames. --Mosmof (talk) 16:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

LOL @ Charles Barkley. Alright, do whatever you feel is right. I apologize. ● 8~Hype ^@ 16:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't actually feel as strongly as I probably come off above - I just figured it doesn't need to be there, and it's a minor magnet for vandalism and content disputes. But thanks for responding. --Mosmof (talk) 04:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Chinese Basketball Association

Hi, until "Infobox CBA Player" is developed, I will try to use this template for Chinese Basketball Association players. Thanks. --Mr Accountable (talk) 19:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually: In terms of meters and centimeters, kilograms, Chinese names, national team status, birth province and birth city, and NBA draft status, I just went ahead and started Template:Infobox CBA Player. TY. --Mr Accountable (talk) 20:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Boldface on team name

The boldface on team name, I think, is unnecessary. The team name is basically on the first line of the players' articles. If one would brother to look at it for a second, one can see the team name clearly. Chris! _ct 18:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The thing that is important though: The team name has to be recognized at first go. Just like the ESPN player pages, who not only have the team logo, but also the team colors on a player's profile. Also the NBA.com pages have a team logo on the player's page for better recognition. But as logos are not allowed, a bold face seems very suitable. Another idea is to add team colors the background of the respective or complete box, with the team name in the team's second color (just like ESPN). ● 8~Hype ^@ 18:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I think adding team color might be a good alternative. But how are we going to do that? Chris! _ct 02:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Official profile

I added "official profile" to the infobox, but it should only be shown if a player is in the NBA, as links to people who are not in the NBA do not exist. Could somebody please help and edit it so that "official profile" is shown only if the infobox includes "league = NBA (or National Basketball Association"? Thank you in advance. ● 8~Hype ^@ 13:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I tried to do that and it seems to work but since I’m unfamiliar with ParserFunctions, I’m not sure if it’s as efficient as possible. How about restricting {{{league}}} to "NBA"? It would make the logic easier, and I don’t see much good in having "National Basketball Association" as another case. —LOL (talk) 06:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I have restricted the league parameter to NBA. At one point, I tried to be WP:Bold and deleted the parameter based on the fact that this template is for NBA players (as the template name suggests). But since I am not sure if other non-NBA basketball players use this template, I have restored it for the moment. What do people think. --Chris! _ct 20:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

There are definitely former NBA players who have moved to another league. Since I can't find an infobox for basketball players outside the NBA, do you think this infobox can be generalized with the league field? —LOL (talk) 02:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to remove the league field's restriction to "NBA" for now because players like Rafael Araujo are no longer in the NBA.

I noticed a problem with the link for Manu Ginóbili. His NBA profile is at www.nba.com/playerfile/emanuel_ginobili — notice that the URL uses his full first name and omits the acute accent. His URL does not match the article name, and thus fails. The same issue would apply for players whose native-language names include diacritics or non-English characters, mainly Eastern Europeans. — Dale Arnett (talk) 22:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC) (Update: Decided to add direct link after all.)

Update: The problem is with Template:NBA playerfile. It doesn't recognize the fact that a player's NBA URL will not necessarily match his name exactly. BTW, It's not just an Eastern European problem — for example, it's also a problem with many names in Romance languages. — Dale Arnett (talk) 22:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for posting about this problem. I noticed it too when 8-Hype copypasted this section into the WikiProject's talk page, so read my response at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Basketball Association#Template:Infobox NBA Player for a solution. —LOL (talk) 22:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I think this should be removed. It results in broken links such as in the case of DJ Augustin. An NBA.com link at the bottom of each profile should be sufficient. Corpx (talk) 05:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Is there still consensus to remove this? We could have a bot add the link in the external links section if necessary. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:17, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

References

Because there is currently an edit war over the data in this infobox at LeBron James, I need to know: Is there a way that source info (i.e. ref tags) for such items as height and weight can be incorporated into this template? -- JeffBillman (talk) 17:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Age

How do you override the age for players who have died? Thanks, Group29 (talk) 14:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe they should be using {{Infobox NBAretired}}, but if I'm wrong I can add a died field. —LOL ^T/_C 15:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

NBARetired, Yes, thank you Group29 (talk) 19:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Former teams section

I'm confused as some users add the teams which the player has never played for that specific team to former teams section (i.e. in Steve Francis article Portland Trail Blazers is included but you know he was released after trade from New York Knicks). Some players are traded to some teams, and released without playing a game for them. Should we include this teams to former teams section? Is there any decision taken in advance? I suppose we should put the teams only he played for.Tamburello (talk) 21:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if there's a project-wide criterion, but how about requiring that a player appear in at least one regular season game? This way, we can avoid the Steve Francis example, where the Blazers had no intention of ever including him on the roster, a retired, but not-yet-renounced player like Keith Van Horn, or teams who draft players with the intention of trading him before the end of the night (i.e. Golden State with Vince Carter). --Mosmof (talk) 23:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm all for that. We can make it a project-wide criteria and put it under a certain rule such as: "Under former teams section, add the teams for which the player had appeared in at least one (1) official game" Tamburello (talk) 08:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Template Loops

I tried to upgrade the template a bit (to make it similar to the MLB and NFL), I'm usually good at these things, but for some reason there is a template loop now and I don't know why. What should I do? --Dodgerblue777 01:40, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Problem

See here. Enigma^msg 04:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Current team not linked in infobox

Is there a reason why the player's current team is not linked anywhere in the infobox? Zagalejo^^^ 19:44, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I wanted to eliminate all the hard-coded links before linking the team in the infobox so that "double" links such as [[[[Team]]]] don't occur. I'm done with that now, hopefully. —LOL ^T/_C 21:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Everything seems to be in order now. Thanks for your hard work. Zagalejo^^^ 23:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Infobox is too tacky

I'm not a fan of this type of infobox. I think something like the NBA retired player would look at like better. Example : Charles Barkley. Just my .02 Corpx (talk) 00:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

We might want to seek a consensus at WT:NBA. Any reasons for why you think it's "tacky"? —LOL ^T/_C 01:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Just the formatting mainly. I feel like the text is too close to each other and it just "jumps out" at the reader and I think its wider than it needs to be. Corpx (talk) 03:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Code update

I've done some significant code cleanup of the template which amongst other things helps with its accessibility; this helps bring the template more in line with other {{infobox}}es, and makes the code much easier to read. The code is in the sandbox; I'll sync it shortly unless there's some constructive reason not to. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:45, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I think you should leave a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Basketball Association. Not many people watch this page.—Chris!_c/t 19:12, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Do it. If people have an interest in this template, they should be watching here. I made some changes to your code, to improve the emitted microformat. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, recently there is an agreement on WikiProject National Basketball Association talk page to overhaul the infobox. So, to reduce the potential of disagreement, it is better to notify editors. At any rate, I've left a note there.—Chris!_c/t 00:40, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I know almost nothing about the template coding, but does the cleanup have to include aligning the parameter to the left? To me it looks more like a format change. — Martin tamb (talk) 08:33, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

This is the format used by 99% of the rest of the infoboxes on Wikipedia, including the infoboxes used on practically every other sporting biography. It is also the format this box used until it was overhauled recently, and so far as I can see the issue of the label alignment change was never brought up then. So this is just going back to the status quo. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:25, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Well the alignment change in the latest overhaul was due to the suggestion that the NBA infobox follows {{Infobox NFLactive}}. Perhaps we should wait for the opinions from User:Beast from da East who suggested it and User:LOL who made the change. I never brought up the alignment issue in the overhauling discussion because both looks just fine to me. — Martin tamb (talk) 09:42, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

So far as I can see, the issue of field alignments was not a consideration there. I'm happy to wait for further input though. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:08, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

{{Infobox NFLactive}} should also use standard presentation. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:26, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Personally I like the format change. If it makes the infobox consistent with the other infoboxes, then even better. Only thing is the "Selected by" line looks out of place, but we can settle that elsewhere. —LOL ^T/_C 11:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Greetings everyone! I know I am entering this discussion a little late in the game, but feel I should put my two cents in as I spend a considerable amount of time editing NBA player's articles, including their infoboxes. I've looked at both the NBA Player and NBAretired templates and here are my thoughts on both:

• High school: though not absolutely necessary, still good to have as some players have not played in college
• NBA draft: keep
• League information: keep
• Career history: keep & also support including the player's current team as well: ( i.e. Denver Nuggets (2010–present) ) – also would like to clarify if a player played for the same team twice do we include the second appearance in a separate line (see: Chris Webber) or should it be included on the same line (see: Tony Massenburg) ?
• Career highlights and awards: keep
• Career stats: for retired only

everything else looks good, can't wait for this to take into affect (which will mean more editing for me to do!) Djrun (talk) 13:56, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Unnecessary change

I really do not understand what this guy Thumperward is talking about, but this change did not need to happen. LOL had the infobox perfect and Thumperward, who is clearly not a sports editor came in here and messed it all up. I don't know if anyone else has this problem but the font is much smaller then that of the MLB and NFL infoboxes, which this infobox was originally modeled after. Overall I am not a fan of this change and I think it might be best if we revert to LOL's original design. Beast from da East (talk) 20:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the font size change is significant, the version that you like has "font-size: 90%" while User:Thumperward's version is "font-size: 88%". In my browser (Firefox and IE), I couldn't even notice the font size difference until I take a look at the infobox code. Anyway, it's LOL himself who reverted your edit to Thumperward's version, which seems like he supports Thumperward's edits. Also, the change has been discussed above almost three months ago and has no objection from several editors. — Martin tamb (talk) 03:56, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The way it is now is perfect, we really don't need to change it. Beast from da East (talk) 16:21, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

What improvements does your preferred version bring and what's wrong with Thumperward's version (besides the font, which can be easily changed)? Who agrees with you? How would you know whether or not Thumperward is a "sports editor"? Why is it relevant when we're dealing with a format/code issue that has little or nothing to do with the actual sport? —LOL ^T/_C 22:19, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Both versions produces exactly the same results except for the font size. So why don't we settle with Chris' version with a slightly larger font size. — Martin tamb (talk) 15:43, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Back in May I told Beast that he could change the font size himself, but judging from his decision to undo all the changes instead of just modifying the font, I thought there was something else he didn't like about Chris' version. However, I suppose it's possible that he just completely ignored my message and tried to fix a blemish by scrapping the whole thing, so if that's the case, then I'd be happy to use Chris' version with an adjusted font size. —LOL ^T/_C 18:50, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

LOL, have you ever heard of the phrase "If It Ain't Broke Don't Fix It"? Thumperward completely destroyed my hopes and dreams when he foolishly decided to come to this infobox and change it for no apparent reason. The reason I suggested this change it because I hated the current NBA format as well as the NBA retired format and loved the MLB/NFL format, so how do you think I feel when Thumperward changes it back to the NBA retired fomat that I completely dispise? I don't even know what Thumperward is talking about regarding the code and it being easier to read, but the current format that I reverted to is of superior quality and we should not have to sacrifice it for the lack-luster version put together by Thumperward. Beast from da East (talk) 23:38, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Please specify which format did you not like and then we can discuss it. I believe we can reach an agreement but you have to make yourself clear on which format that need to be changed or discussed. Is it the label alignment to the left or the slightly smaller font size? — Martin tamb (talk) 05:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Beast: as Chris already pointed out, your preferred version is inconsistent with most infoboxes on Wikipedia, so it is broken. Why does Wikipedia care about your "hopes and dreams" about an infobox, what you "feel", whether you "loved" format A and not format B, or which infobox you think is "superior" when you haven't given even one good reason to keep your preferred version? Are you so important that your interests come before those of Wikipedia on its own website? Your persistent "I like this and hate that" is a statement, not an argument, and to date I haven't seen any justification for it. —LOL ^T/_C 21:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Consider this your only warning for personal attacks. I'm going to ignore your attacks on my character and experience save to say that you don't know what you're talking about: I have considerable expertise on editing infobox templates, specifically sports infobox templates. The onus is on you to argue for your preferred version; the new code is far cleaner, easier to maintain and consistent with the vast majority of the rest of the encyclopedia's infoboxes. I'll be restoring it in a few days unless there is a compelling argument not to. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:24, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean by "Code"? How is it that two of the most popular infoboxes of all time in the MLB and NFL infoboxes can have that format and this can't? Obviously LOL dedicated his time in changing this infobox, but I also was a big part of it as I am the one who first suggested this change. The thing that I dislike most in your version is the font size, so if that can be approved then maybe I'll find some peace with your version. On a side note, why is what you say is true about sports infoboxes, why hasn't the NHL infobox adopted a similar format to that of the NBA, NHL or MLB? Can you also change that to the format you brought here? Beast from da East (talk) 21:15, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The hockey articles have their own issues, see here for starters. Not that it really matters, but I seriously doubt that MLB and NFL are the most popular infoboxes of all time, although they are popular (see Wikipedia:Database reports/Templates with the most transclusions). Font sizes can always be adjusted if there is consensus to do so. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:14, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The MLB and NFL infoboxes will be cleaned up in due course; neither are in particularly good shape right now. Neither are anywhere near as used as, say, {{infobox football biography}} and {{infobox football biography 2}}, which have over a hundred thousand transclusions between them and both use the font size proposed for this one (along with the majority of infoboxes with over 20,000 transclusions). It's not really a case of you "finding peace" with these changes; the onus is on you to state your case for them, and if it's merely personal preference then there's not really much weight behind that argument. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I've now restored the updated code. Beast from da East, if you still want to discuss the font size then I'm happy to oblige, but from the perspective of altering the current code rather than regressing to the old layout. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:02, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

That would be "discuss", not unilaterally change. If there's no forthcoming rationale to explain why this template should use 90% (which results in a different font size on IE6 and Firefox, and isn't the default used on most other infoboxes) then this should be changed back. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:12, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

NBA.com profiles

I'm not sure if this is related to the recent edits to the template, but I've noticed that none of the NBA.com profile links are working. Any ideas? Zagalejo^^^ 18:45, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Kevin Garnett's works fine here. Got a test case? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:42, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, pretty much everyone but Kevin Garnett. :) See Brian Scalabrine, or Ron Artest. When I click on the links, I get this. Zagalejo^^^ 05:29, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Forgot that even empty parameters will be passed. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:26, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

That seemed to do the trick! Thanks. Zagalejo^^^ 18:33, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, there is one snag. In some articles (eg, Andrei Kirilenko (basketball)), the profile field had to be manually filled in, because the name of the wiki article won't correspond to an nba.com page. Now, the profile link at the Kirilenko page (and similarly named pages) won't work. If I knew what I was doing, I'd make the necessary changes myself, but unfortunately, I'm not sure how to apply the fix. Zagalejo^^^ 03:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I've introduced a robust new fix for this. Let me know if everything seems okay now. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

On Dwyane Wade, the profile param was not supplied, so the external link showed up as "wade Dwyane Wade" and linked to http://www.nba.com/playerfile/dwyane, which isn't his profile. I set the profile param manually and the problem went away. I think that's related to the above. --an odd name 19:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

This, too, is fixed, and the Wade article should no longer need to specify the profile. Sorry for the fallout, folks. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Everything seems to be in order. Thanks. Zagalejo^^^ 18:53, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Verified and working. Thank you. --an odd name 19:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Font size change

I have no problems with the code change but I still cannot stand the font size. May I suggest a change of 88 to 90 so we can finally end this saga? Beast from da East (talk) 01:00, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

88% was chosen as a global default size for {{infobox}}, for the reason that it's the largest lower-than-100% font size which is displayed at the same size on both Firefox and Internet Explorer 6. IE6 treats anything bigger than 88% differently, making our templates have different layouts across different browsers. We don't really want that. The vast majority of high-profile infobox templates now use 88% ({{taxobox}} is the only major exception AFAIK). Using a different size here would not only result in browser weirdness, but would also make this template look different from most other infoboxes for no apparent reason. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 08:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I have not had a problem with the font size on any computer that I've used thus far, wheter it be at home, at my job, a friends house or my local library. But I do have an ultimatum, we change it to 90 for now and if anybody other then you has a problem and voices it at this talk page, we change it back to 88 and keep it that way. Beast from da East (talk) 02:49, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

If you have no problem with the font size, then why do you want to change it? Besides, changing it can cause browser weirdness according to the above editor. And we definitely don't want that. So, I say we keep the font size the way it is (88%) if there is no problem with it.—Chris!_c/t 02:56, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I said I never had a problem with the font at 90% and it's debateable that 90% even causes problems as both the NFL and MLB infoboxes have used 90% from the very start and not one person has ever complained about it, while the NBA infobox uses 88 and I cannot stop complaining about it. So I say make it 90 Beast from da East (talk) 04:12, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I just read the above discussion. It seems like Firefox and IE treat 90% font size differently. So, that is the reason why changing to 90% is not a good idea. So, I still think we should keep it at 88%.—Chris!_c/t 23:52, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I currently use IE6 on my computer and have used Firefox several times before and I'm telling you it's a myth. I have not had one problem with the font on either program. Beast from da East (talk) 01:23, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

What happened to Chris Cunningham and Chris Homingtang? Let's settle this conflict as soon as possible so we can move on with our lives. Like I said before both the MLB and NFL infoboxes use 90 and neither project has gotten one complaint about the font size. So why not just go to 90%? Beast from da East (talk) 18:10, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

It's already settled. Inconsistency with two infoboxes which both have seriously questionable current layouts is less optimal than consistency with 99% of the rest of the project. As you're the only one who supports the change, it looks like there's consensus against it. Consensus is not solely based on having the last word, so unless you've reason to believe that you've actually convinced anyone to change their minds this is settled. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 10:56, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

"making our templates have different layouts across different browsers. We don't really want that" It's folly to imagine we could ever have such control. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:24, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

We can't guarantee it (indeed, nothing in HTML ever says we should be able to), but given the choice of a font size which looks consistent across contemporary browsers and one which doesn't, it makes sense to adopt the former for the time being. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 10:54, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I just reverted a change to the font-size by Beast from da East, who stated that "I guess we've come to an agreement. If anybody has a problem with the font size, voice it at the talkpage, if not then let's keep it at 90". Reading this discussion, I see no such agreement. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I was just about to do the same. Looks like the opposite to me. 88 is where it should be. -DJSasso (talk) 23:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Steve Francis

From what I can tell, based on experimentation, an infobox must have a career end date in order to display the players' nba.com historical playerfile. However, what can be done in a case like Steve Francis, who hasn't clearly retired from basketball, but only has a historical playerfile at NBA.com? I don't think it's correct to insert a career end date just to get the link at the bottom of the infobox to work. Zagalejo^^^ 21:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I put "career_end = present" manually, and it shows the historical playerfile link on the infobox. However, saying that his "Pro career 1999–present" seems a little bit strange since he haven't played any game since December 2007 and haven't been under contract with any team since January 2009. But anyway he hasn't announce his retirement either, so I guess it could be fine.

That's not a bad solution, actually. Zagalejo^^^ 05:49, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Change

I am trying to make the infobox shows "No notable achievements" if nothing is passed into the highlights parameter. It was implemented but then reverted. I don't understand why such a non-controversial change needs to be discussed. Anyway, I am starting a discussion right now.—Chris!_c/t 05:07, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd probably vote against it. IMO, there's something slightly mean-spirited about it. In addition, it's not always clear what we should count as a notable accomplishment. Almost anyone who makes it to the NBA can claim some sort of honor from his high school or college years.

I thought things were fine before. Zagalejo^^^ 06:03, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree with the mean-spirited part, but I do agree that it is hard to see what accomplishment is notable. Ok, this change is not a good idea I guess.—Chris!_c/t 19:30, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I basically agree with Zagalejo. In addition, it inflates the length of the box for individuals who haven't had any notable accomplishments. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:36, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Does the MOS have restriction on how long the box should be?—Chris!_c/t 20:08, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

If it doesn't, it should. My feeling is that the prose should be longer than the infobox. The infobox provides a quick "at a glance" summary of the subject, but most of the salient information should be in prose as well. Of course, there are certain stats which are best presented in an infobox, but notable awards, player history, accomplishments, biographical information, should be in prose as well. Just my 2 cents. Of course, if you really want to state that there are "no notable accomplishments", you could always just set the |highlights= to state this. I just would like the option of removing this section if the box is dwarfing the article. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:24, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

By the way, if you want a list of all the transclusions which have this parameter either blank or missing, I can generate this, or add a tracking category to track it for you. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:27, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

If you could do that for me, that would be good.—Chris!_c/t 21:27, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Done. They will start appearing in Category:NBA player with no awards or highlights once the server starts re-caching the pages. I restricted it to articles only, but that could be changed. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:50, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Recall

I knew this was going to happen, but I did not expect one of my best friends on this site in Plastikspork to do this to me. Anyways, like I've mentioned countless times before, the NBA infobox's cousins, the MLB and NFL infoboxs, both use size 90 font, it looks better, its easier to see and most importantly, everybody seems to love it. Now the NBA infobox uses the exact same format, with one exception, the font size is 88 rather then 90. When LOL and me came together to create this NBA infobox, we originally used 90, but that all changed when Chris Cunningham AKA Thumperward, who is not a member of the NBA WikiProject and has never contributed to any NBA related articles stumbled onto our glorious creation and needlessly changed the infobox. While I did not agree with his changes to the infobox, I do respect the fact that he is indeed a member of this Wikipedia community and has every right to contribute to any article he so choses. But while he may have meant well, he started something that I simply do not and will not agree with. If we can somehow come to agreement on a font size change, I can finally start my mission and make sure each and every NBA player, past and present, has this infobox in their rescpective articles. I'd also like to include more people to share their views on this matter this time then the usual four to five people. Any opinions would be greatly apprecieted. Beast from da East (talk) 20:47, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I believe the argument that "88%" is the largest size, less than 100%, which appears the same in most browsers is compelling. While the difference between 88 and 90 is not large in many browsers, it can be quite large in some, as mentioned in the thread above. One nice thing about having an account on WP is that you can (frequently) actually change your own personal preferences, by overriding the style in MediaWiki:common.css. All that needs to be done is to add the "88%" to one of the standard classes on that page, then use that class. A user can then override the font-size by selecting his/her own value for that class in his/her own personal css file. Given that changes to the the font-size are controversial, and the prior thread had no consensus to change it back to 90, I would suggest discussing here before making any more changes. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:05, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Beast, it doesn't matter if two other sports infoboxes use 90; I instantly found two others that use 88: hockey and football. The notion that "its easier to see and most importantly, everybody seems to love it" is unsubstantiated. It doesn't matter if the current format started with a different font size, because the big picture is what counts: the vast majority of Wikipedia infoboxes use 88, and it doesn't take an NBA WikiProject member to understand that. There's nothing "glorious" about the NBA infobox, and the change was necessary for consistency in the big picture. The font size doesn't need to be changed in order to add infoboxes to player articles. I'm sorry you're still bothered so much by a 2% difference, but I don't find it hard to read and I can't find a compelling reason to use 90. —LOL ^T/_C 21:10, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

A 2% difference may not mean alot to most, but to me it means everything. The 88 font bothers me so much I can barely stand to even look at the infoboxes and if not for Thumperward, the font would have remained at 90. The hockey and soccer infoboxes do not use the same format as the MLB, NFL and NBA so they really have nothing to do with it. I've been wanting to start my mission of making sure every NBA player has the current NBA infobox, but I can simply not do it if the 88 font remains. Maybe you can meet my halfway at 89? Beast from da East (talk) 21:35, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I would say the solution is to update your personal CSS file, then you can set the size to whatever you like the most. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:49, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

FYI, if anyone else wants to do this, see here, which will set the default size for all infoboxes using the infobox class, like this one. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:00, 2 March 2011 (UTC)