Jump to content

Template talk:Infobox Canadian Football League biography/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Height and weight revisited

I know that someone requested this earlier, but I think that height and weight should be removed. They are not stable statistics. What i mean by this is that a person's height and especially a person's weight will change dramatically over the course of a career/lifetime. Also, it is often a point of great contention when comparing the information across various sites (ESPN vs CNN vs PFR). Although it's a neat feature, does anyone see a reason why these should be left in? Jmfangio 11:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I see no reason for change, and I like having them. I just use the official website's info for this stuff to keep things consistent.►Chris Nelson 15:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  • (You can skip to the bullet points to get the short version) I'm concerned about the ability to maintain this information without a dispute. For example, you just said the "official website". What site should be considered "the official" website? Are you referring to NFL.com? Many players are not in that database - Johnny Unitas and Dick Lane are just several examples. Should we then use a player's official site? Not many of them actually have official websites. To complicate the matter, the template seems to be used universally for both retired players and active players. I've also seen how it was in place on Calvin Johnson's article before he even made it to the NFL. In a nut shell, using this information in this manner makes it impossible to meet WP:V, which is a policy, and not just a guideline. When Height/weight is used to refer to a players college weight (or something like that) it is easy to pass WP:V. However, To summarize -
  1. Information fails WP:V because the information changes over time. This means it also fails WP:NPOV. I see no policy or guideline that supports their use.
  2. Establishing a unified source for the information is impractical, if not impossible, for everyone every article that utilizes on the information.

Jmfangio ► Talk 20:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

By official websites, he means official team websites, all of which keep ht/wgt data for their active players. NFL.com also keeps (usually) the same data, although it takes them until August/September to update it. I think as long as ht/wgt is used for active players, it should be fine. Pats1 21:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Regardless of what he meant, I think this still lends itself to being problematic. If they do in fact change the data, then that's going to create a LOT of work for us to keep the data up-to-date. That being said, I'm okay with it being used on "current" players if the information is all taken from one source. How do we enforce that? Jmfangio ► Talk 21:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
NFL.com player pages. I've watched them carefully in the past, and their data doesn't change over the course of the season.
  • Yea, it'd be pointless to use these stats for people who retired since most of the time, the numbers arent the same. How about a new template for players no longer in the league? Corpx 21:48, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  • That's exactly where i was going. I think a few templates could be created to really help the project. Retired players, non-nfl players (like USFL who did not play in the NFL), and related figures (like owners) could all use infoboxes. In addition, I think it should not be used for players who don't fit the criteria (as it was for Calvin Johnson before the draft). Jmfangio ► Talk 21:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

New Template Work

Help and comments are welcomed. The template is for retired players and has been started at User:Jmfangio/Template:NFLretired. I have opened a discussion there as well, please comment so I can make changes that reflect the desires of the community as a whole. Jmfangio ► Talk 02:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm a big fan of the MLB player infobox and there is one feature of it I'd love to see implemented in the NFL player infobox. First, let me know what you guys think, and if you like it I'd need help editing the infobox accordingly because I suck at it. You'll notice in the MLB template that there are selected statistics featured in the infobox itself. I'd like to see this in NFL infoboxes as well. I think it'd be cool to go to Peyton Manning's article and see a "Selected Statistics" section in the infobox featuring, for example, passing yards, touchdowns completion percentage and passer rating. I also think this could be better than having a handful of links IN the infobox to the same statistics, especially sine a few of them either don't update often or not at all. Obviously, these links still have value, which is why I propose we put them in the External links section of a player's article. You can see here that someone has made an External links template for baseball, and we could do the same with football.

So what do you guys think?►Chris Nelson 20:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I haven't read through any of this discussion yet, but everything looks good. Would it be possible, when the new template is created, to lock-in team colors? Therefore, when someone inputs a team into the "team" parameter for an active player, the team's colors are automatically added from the doc page for this template? The retired player template obviously shouldn't have colors, as in most cases the player played for multiple teams. Pats1 22:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
That's a good idea, pats. I too don't know if that's possible.►Chris Nelson 22:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Pats Are you talking about for this template or the NFLretired template that is in production. It would be great for you to come and join that conversation btw...only Chris and I have said anything on the talk page so far. Jmfangio ► Talk 22:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Both, I guess. What I'm saying is that the retired player template shouldn't have any team-specific colors to it, as the active player template does now. This is because retired players probably played for (or coached for) multiple teams, meaning having any team-specific colors would be POV. I'm even a bit leery about having the red and blue on the retired player template, as although those are the colors of the NFL, they are also associated with teams (Bills, Patriots, etc.) Pats1 22:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Hehe... Chris and I were just discussing that. We both agree on the idea, we're just trying to get some more input as to what colors to use. Go check out that page, you'll dig it! :-) Jmfangio ► Talk 22:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Hey, don't tell Pats1 what to dig! ►Chris Nelson 22:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Hey, Jmfangio I like your NFL retired template and I was wondering if you can put the draft year, round, and pick the player was taken. I also am a fan of the MLB template and like the three stat thing judging on the position, I believe that for Quarterbacks it should be Touchdowns, passing yards, and even though its negative interceptions but for people like Michael Vick maybe rushing yards could take place for one of the three. Halfbacks easily should have rushing yards, rushing touchdowns, and yards per carry. Wide receivers should also easily be Receptions, receiving yards and receiving touchdowns. Offensive lineman should have maybe only two games played and games started. For all defensive players it should be tackles, sacks, and interceptions. Kickers should have Points, field goals made, and extra points made, and punters should have punts, yards, and avg, and coaches should have Wins, loss, and winning %. Thanks for listening to my opinion. --Phbasketball6 03:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh this is great input! The stats section is setup so that each user box can have whatever statistics they want. Right now they are all "required" and there are three of them. I'm inclined to go with that format because regardless of position, not everyone excels in the same categories. I'm not sure that you can even find games played vs. games started for most OLs. Anthony Munoz is one of the most notable players that i can think of. His stats at pfr are nothing more than a list of years played and pro bowls. This box is not geared toward coaches or anything like that. I think staff members are going to need another infobox. That being said, I do think the draft info is a great suggestion. I will add that in to the header section. Jmfangio ► Talk 20:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Poll: Jersey numbers

Should a player's jersey number be put with the information in the infobox or on top by his name? See the above thread for details, Quadzilla99 00:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

On top

  1. - Chris Nelson 00:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  2. - Pats1 00:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC) (Another short little entry into the infobox would add wasted space and unnecessarily stretch it)
  3. - aviper2k7 I think it looks good on top and contributes to the article. The number is helpful also and pertinent to their career.++aviper2k7++ 00:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Inside

  1. - DChase1 00:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  2. See my comments above. Quadzilla99 00:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  3. Bjewiki 00:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  4. It's totally tacky these guys are human beings and have a life off the field they're more that Joe Montana-16. Tayquan hollaMy work 01:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
    There's no personal information in the template either.++aviper2k7++ 01:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
    Backwards logic. Tayquan hollaMy work 01:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  5. Weak inside. Inside. I upgraded my vote based on Andy Mabbett's 11th Commandment below. —xanderer 13:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  6. -Inside. I like the number idea, but it looks crappy on the upper bar Soxrock 17:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  7. Trevor GH5 19:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  8. Inside Upon further review, I like the idea of having numbers, but I don't feel it belongs with the name for an encyclopedia. For bios on league sites it's fine, but it doesn't seem appropriate here. Looking over the various sports infoboxes, I feel that this NFL player infobox should be modeled after Template:Infobox MLB player with the current team along with the jersey number stated just below the picture caption. As the infobox stands right now, it's difficult for a non-sports fan to recognize what team a player is on until they scroll to "Team(s)" at the bottom. Should the current team be added to this infobox, another recommendation is that the "Team(s)" section should be renamed "Former team(s)" to eliminate the redundancy of stating the current team twice. Just my two cents (or silver dollars). RyguyMN 00:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  9. inside. I'm all for the uniform numbers—it's an outstanding suggestion—but for every Brett Farve who is well known for his number, there is a Jeff Feagles who has worn many different uniform numbers in his career. It's an Important detail indeed, but not important enough to elevate to alongside a player's name. Slurpeeman 02:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  10. inside. It would look way better Yankees10
  11. Inside. 11th Commandment. 24.255.116.227 17:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  12. Inside. I certainly dislike the idea of adding it next to a players name. I prefer it inside the infobox similar to {{Infobox NCAA Athlete}} Вasil | talk 22:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  13. Weak Inside. I don't like the number by the man's name, it looks kind of lame (to me). I would prefer it on the inside of the infobox, or not at all. –King Bee (τ • γ) 12:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Comments

What the hell is the meaning of this Chris? Quadzilla99 00:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

What?Chris Nelson 00:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

You deleted my vote. I find it hard to believe that was an accident. Quadzilla99 01:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Why would I delete your vote? It would serve no purpose, since it'd be clearly visible in the history that I did it would only make me look like an ass. I don't know how it happened, because all I did was write the number sign, a dash and sign my name. Maybe I edited the page after you and saved over it. I don't know. But I assure you it was unintentional, so I apologize.Chris Nelson 01:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

This is ridiculous, you just edited my comment again. Jesus Christ. Do you think no one can see these diffs and no it doesn't work that edit the way you're describing it. Quadzilla99 01:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Dude, I haven't edited your comments. That doesn't make sense. I don't know what the hell it is. I haven't edited anything of yours. I voted, then I replied just now. I've been on Wikipedia long enough to know how history on pages works. Why would I intentionally do something when it could be clearly visible and would only hurt me?Chris Nelson 01:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'll assume good faith, but I've never seen that happen before and I've got almost 27k edits. Let's just forget about it and move on. Quadzilla99 01:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Tayquan I'm not sure I understand your argument. How does adding their jersey number make them less of a human being? The infobox is for career-related things. Career-related things like where they played college ball, Pro Bowls, past teams. Jersey numbers falls into that. Team rosters don't list guys as "Peyton Manning - really nice human being." I don't see what you're getting at.Chris Nelson 01:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The info box is for career things,yes. But, the name box is for the person's name. There are a million things one could put there: Tom Brady, QB; Tom Brady, winner Super Bowls (XXXVI, XXXVIII, XXXIX); Tom Brady, of the New England Patriots, etc..DChase1 01:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, for those who don't want to extend the info box downwards, I propose it is placed next to their position. So for example: Position(s) QB, #12 DChase1 02:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Except none of that stuff would look as good or make as much sense.Chris Nelson 02:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Nothing makes sense there because it is the name bar DChase1 03:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not like there is some universal rule that is HAS to be the name bar. If I believed in god, I wouldn't think he would have told Moses that the first bar in an infobox must only be used for player names. It's just the way it was first done. Change does not equal bad. Don't fear change!Chris Nelson 03:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

You forget the eleventh commandment - Thou shalt not put anything but the name in the name field, because it's used to populate the "fn" (name) property of the hcard microformat. Andy Mabbett 09:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Ha! You just made me spit out my coffee. —xanderer 13:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

So this is gonna fail by a 5-3 vote. That blows.Chris Nelson 16:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, anyone that reads this, PLEASE DO NOT remove the number fields from the templates on player pages that have them. If we decide to move the number inside the infobox, the field can stay the same, all we have to do is change where it shows up in the template. So you're just creating more work. So leave the number fields if they are already there, and just wait for the template to be changed. Chris Nelson 17:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Nah, be patient. Final uniform numbers wont be assigned for months, so there's no reason not to leave to poll open for a while. What's up there now is hardly a consensus, plus a few of the "inside" votes have nonsensical rationales. — x a n d e r e r 17:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Guys that voted for inside, I'm going to ask you one last time to reconsider. I feel that some of you think it only looks weird because you're simply not used to it, when if it had been the other way around you might feel it looks weird without it.

As for the number being given too much prominence in the infobox, I disagree, and here is why. Consider all the NFL player pages at various major sources:

Also consider Green's bio at the official Chiefs website here.

Numbers are clearly thought prominent by what I would consider all the major sources on this matter. A player's jersey doesn't have his date of birth stitched on it. It has his number. It's how he is identifies on the field, doing the thing he's famous for in the first place. It's how many NFL team websites order their roster, including our own NFL roster templates within positions. It's why you instantly recognize whose jersey someone is wearing on the street. So the prominence argument, I would say, is a poor one.

In my mind, the infobox is for things that are linked. Date of birth, place of birth, position, awards, pro bowls, draft, former teams, etc. All possibly linked things. The number doesn't need to be there, it's just basic info about a player on his current team. I believe next to his name is the best place for it, and I think player pages on those various websites have it like that for a reason.Chris Nelson 18:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Excellent point, Chris. Pats1 00:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Okay, so here's the deal. I am almost totally sure that about half the people that voted against my idea only did so because it was me that proposed it, because of our "run-ins" in the past. Obviously, I should have had someone else propose it. I guarantee the poll would have been a lot different had that been the case.
Furthermore, I have argued my side at quite a length, and did so very reasonably and articulately. Most of the reasons for the "inside" votes are poor, and some aren't good reasons at all. (Ex. it's too prominent. Uh, no.) All of you KNOW that the information somewhere in the article improves it. I also think most of you would agree that an infobox field that looks something like 'Jersey Number          4' would just look silly sandwiched between things like birth place, position and college. I would say my examples of the links showing the prominence of the numbers is as good as any, and I see no reason why a Wikipedia article should differ from sources like that.
Therefore, I plan on continuing to add numbers as I update and standardize NFL infoboxes. Once the season begins and final rosters have been set, I plan on going team by team and standardizing the infoboxes so that colors, flag icons, positions, and so on are all presented the same way on every article. As of now, I also plan on adding the jersey numbers to the top bar of the infobox. Why? Because I have yet to hear good enough reason why it's a bad thing, and I've presented plenty of reasons why it's a good thing. And I'm not going to let what I believe improves articles be messed up just because some people hold grudges over past encounters.Chris Nelson 06:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
It seems that the poll is pretty overwhelmingly (10-3) in favor of putting the numbers inside the box, not in the title. While, I will admit, I have had run-ins with you in the past, that has nothing to do with my decision on which way I should vote. As we discussed on our talk pages, I initially liked the numbers in the title, but was swayed to "inside" by the discussions above. Although, if you really think that that many people are out to get you, because of previous run-ins, maybe that should tell you something about your working style in the wikipedia community. Remember, this is after all a community project, so I urge you to take into consideration the feelings of the community, which in this case seem to be to not clutter up the infoboxe titles with unecessary information like player number. Bjewiki 13:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
You are manufacturing explanations for why the poll isn't going your way. I've never had a run-in with you, and I've agreed with you on previous polls—It has nothing to do with my vote. I would, however, caution you about statements like "I refuse to," and "I'm doing it anyway." They're a good way to get yourself banned. Trust me. —xanderer 16:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Well I've yet to hear one argument for "inside" or simply against it being in the top bar that I can't totally destroy. Therefore, I refuse to acknowledge a poll if people don't have good reasons.Chris Nelson 13:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

You're only hearing what you want to hear. By far the best reason against it is that putting the number there breaks the hcard microformat for the NFL player info box. Bjewiki 14:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
But additionally, I agree with all the people who cited that it clutters the info box title with unecessary information. Bjewiki 14:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Well first of all, I don't know what that is, so if someone can explain it to me or point me to a place where it can be explained, and if it's a good enough reason, I'll give in. But as for the "it looks bad" argument, it's simply not good enough. I think it looks bad without it. But neither argument alone is worth deciding its presence, and the fact remains it contributes positively to the article. So I'll wait for a good reason. It's not about hearing what I want to hear, and simply not liking the argument. It's that the arguments are poor and can be knocked down easily.Chris Nelson 14:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[1] Bjewiki 14:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't know what it is either, but I'm smart enough not to mess with it. This seems like a slam-dunk reason not to put anything else in the name field. Period. 24.255.116.227 17:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Since no one knows what it means, let me breifly explains. Basically, it makes the page automatically parasable for a computer, so that you can extract data for it. You could write a computer program right now, to search all of the NFL player pages on Wikipedia, and extract their name, position, etc. But, adding the number onto the name (as it was done), would result in names being extracted as "Brett Favre - No. 4", as opposed to "Brett Favre". Bjewiki 17:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Can you explain it in English?Chris Nelson 14:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

"The HTML mark up produced by this template includes an hCard microformat, which makes the person's details parsable by computers, either acting automatically to catalogue article across Wikipedia, or via a browser tool operated by a reader, to (for example) add the subject to an address book. For more information about the use of microformats on Wikipedia, please see the microformat project." That's pretty well explained there. Bjewiki 14:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, I don't even know why I'm proposing this, but what about a bar under the image/caption (where that new team bar is now) that says something like 'Quarterback - No. 10'? I just think a field that says Jersey number and then has a big space and says 10 is going to look retarded. There has to be a better way to display this, and a more prominent place, BECAUSE it deserves it.Chris Nelson 14:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

As several users have pointed out, for every Brett Favre (who is associated with No.4) there are 40 Joe Six-Packs who change numbers as often as people change underwear. For those players (who are likely the majority), the jersey number isn't really important enough to be in the title (thus we shouldn't do it for anyone). However, I think your idea to to explore alternate areas in the infobox(other than the infobox title) for the numebr is fine. Bjewiki 14:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Well the original comment was that for every Brett Favre there is a Vinny Testaverde. However, retired players and free agents are irrelevant here because obviously we would just remove the field from their infoboxes. This is for current players, who have current numbers. First of all, I think you're exaggerating how often jersey numbers change. Secondly, I would argue they are MORE important for lesser known players, that the info would be more valuable to the common reader.Chris Nelson 14:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but lesser known players tend to change their numbers so often, that that information really isn't benefitial enough to warrant inclusion in the infobox title. Bjewiki 14:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Okay, Testaverde was a bad example since he is now retired , but don't allow that to obscure my point: For every player who is synonymous with their uniform number, there are many for whom the number has little meaning. Slurpeeman 17:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I would suggest doing it similar to MLB players, such as Ken_Griffey,_Jr., which I believe is what you were getting at earlier. Bjewiki 14:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Well I plan on keeping the numbers up to date, so I don't see the problem there.

I'd like to experiment some with the other idea I had, but unfortunately I don't know how to edit a template like that.Chris Nelson 14:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, here's a good reason for the bar below that image that says 'Quarterback - No. 4':

All the stuff in the first section of the infobox is past stuff. Birth date, birth place, college, draft year, etc. That's all past stuff. Brett Favre is STILL a quarterback, and he STILL wears No. 4. Those two things are very necessary to his current status, while the other things that would sandwich it in the "inside" proposal are not.Chris Nelson 15:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

That team bar looks like crap if there's no player picture, which is the case for almost every player. Pats1 16:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree it does kind of look funny. But what if we did the name bar the same way the MLB infobox does it, like here? Also, wouldn't it be cool to kind of model this template off the MLB one, and have maybe three categories of career stats? I think it'd be neat. Obviously we'd have to add some places for things like Colleges and probably remove the debuts, but I think using it as a model would be nice.Chris Nelson 20:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

To be more specific, here's what I'm envisioning. Go to Template:Infobox MLB player and look at the All Options On part. This is what I envision an NFL version looking like: -Name, image, number, and current team info all the same as the MLB template -Where the bats/throws info is located, I would place all the info from the first section of the NFL template as it is in the NFL template now (DOB through draft info) -In the MLB debut section, we put the Career Highlight section, to include awards, honors, etc. -Selected MLB stats I'd put the same for NFL stats. I don't see the need for all these stat links, especially since some aren't always updated. Wouldn't it be cool to have that on Brett Favre's infobox, and have selected stats including, say, passing yards, touchdowns and something else (passer rating? completions?) -The teams section could be the same as the MLB infobox now, or we could keep it like it is. Really doesn't matter, it could still go there.

So here's the question: Why not? Wouldn't this infobox look good? Wouldn't it solve all these disputes about numbers and current teams? Also, wouldn't it be good to have some more similarities between sports infoboxes?Chris Nelson 20:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Chris, I agree with you that the NFL infobox should be modeled after the MLB box. How about getting rid of the team colors around the player's name and using a black font instead? Just like the MLB box, the team name can be listed below with the team colors. It seems silly to have the player name in colors than the team name since the colors are refering to a team. RyguyMN 00:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd really be interested to see what the template would like modeled after the MLB infobox in the manner I described before. Unfortunately I don't know how to do that stuff.Chris Nelson 00:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I could make the changes since I've done work adding the jersey numbers and team name. If there is some concensus on how the infobox should look I'll be happy to work on it. RyguyMN 02:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Well is there any way you could do it like I proposed a little while ago, maybe just to test it out? We can undo it and go back to a good version, I just want to see how it looks so people can see it for themselves before voting on that. Or is there any way we can do it separately somewhere else?Chris Nelson 03:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The jersey number inside is terrible, it doesn't even stand out at all on every source for NFL stats has the number near the name of the player and is it only for present, past, or both? Thanks --Phbasketball6 13:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

No one has it "out for you" because you propsed it. Thats a terrible argument and a fallacy. Why do you continue to add it to player pages when it was clearly struck down? Michigan10 00:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Canadian info

Just wanted to say thanks to the person(s) who've added Canadian/CFL-related parameters to this template over time. We've had a redirect here from {{Infobox CFL player}} for a while but most people just bypass the redirect anyway, and at this point I see no need for a separate template. I notice that people are using it for some arena league players too. A move to a more general name might not be a bad idea. Personally I support the use of general/merged templates wherever it makes sense to avoid template creep. heqs ·:. 14:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

HOFYear

A number of players look like their template is hosed because the HOF and HOFYear attributes aren't done correctly. I don't have time right now to fix them, but if someone else could look into them that would be great. —Wrathchild (talk) 20:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Merge

Template:Infobox NFL player and Template:Infobox NFLactive/Template:Infobox NFLretired should be merged. --Louis Alberto Guel 00:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Template broken?

I have checked several articles that use this template and have noticed that the draft info is not showing. If you go into edit, you find the info IS there. Has anyone else noticed this?--JustAGal 13:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Replace

I made up a new infobox!!! --Louis Alberto Guel 01:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

While I appreciate the effort, I don't think it's significantly better than the current one. Example: if the positions string is longer than a few characters, it throws the columns off. I much prefer a single column over the monstrosity that is the NFLActive template. Example: Jack Helms. Also, why is the jersey number linked? —Disavian (talk/contribs) 02:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
This entire infobox is being phased out, so...►Chris NelsonHolla! 12:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


Sacks

Sacks. The wikie standard is verifiable. If the Raiders credit howie Long with 7 sacks in 1981, the year before they are official, why should his bio short him? He had 93 sacks, not 84. Wiki is not related to Elias Sports Bureau or the NFL. Why should official team sources be ignored as to be "official". Official to who? The point is to be fair, accurate. As long as sacks are only offical then wikie serves no purpose to enlighten readers, it would only give them the same line as the NFL----"sack prior to 1982 are unofficial". Well, that is true, btu as long as pre-1981 sacks are noted as unofficial then there should be no problem using them, as long as they are verifiable, which is the wikipedia standard that is adhered. Right?72.0.36.36 (talk) 03:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


I think it sould only be the official sacks, meaning i like the idea of having 84 in the infobox not 93--Rockies17 15:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Could you say why? If he had 93 sacks, why not use the real number, even if one year is not official? If the purpose of the infobox is to have information, why put faulty information in it? I would rather that sacks not be used at all, put in his games played and his years played, etc. If you have a reason for your view, I'd like to see it so I can understand it better it.72.0.36.36 02:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Rockies17 they are official NFL stats, and if you put 93 instead of 84 then the information is not accurate because sacks werent an official stat at the time--Yankees10 02:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Not true, the 93 is he accurate number, the 84 is the "official" number. In this case "official" is not accurate. Also, look at Lawrence Taylor. His official sacks are 132.5, but the accurate number is 142. Just because a statistic is not "official" does not mean it didn't happen. The rule for wikipedia is "verifiable". The rookie sack numbers are 100% accurate and verifiable. I am going to start using them because there is no rule against it. SOmetimes I find really young wikipedia people who don't yet have a good sense of history. I think as you guys grow and learn you will gain a better understanding of statistics. 72.0.36.36 23:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the IP user. They are verifiable from a reliable source and therefore it's suitable for Wikipedia.►Chris NelsonHolla! 23:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

"Wiki is not related to Elias Sports Bureau or the NFL. Well, that is true, btu as long as pre-1981 sacks are noted as unofficial then there should be no problem using them, as long as they are verifiable, which is the wikipedia standard that is adhered." Serves his point very well here and I agree with him. --Phbasketball6 01:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I seriousley think it is dumb to have the unofficial stats when you go to database football.com they dont have the unofficial stats--Rockies17 04:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Statistics

Why is there a need to provide 3 or 4 links, when all the links show the same statistics? Shouldnt one link to NFL.com stats page be sufficient? (for a current player) ? Corpx 21:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Especially since one doesn't even update anymore. I actually wouldn't mind some actual statistics in the infobox, like the MLB infobox.Chris Nelson 22:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I think some of the sources are overkill (Sports Illustrated, CBS), but I think that 3 of the main sources (ESPN, NFL.com & Pro Football Reference) are important to maintain. I know when i'm looking for information on a particular player, i'm usually looking for it on one of those 3 sources, so I think it makes sense to maintain the links to those player profile/stats pages (obviously it should be open to discussion exactly what sources should be considered the "main" ones). Also, I think we could cut that section down a little bit if we wanted. The "Statistics" label is redundant, since it's already the section heading. Also, instead of a long bulleted list, we could change it to one line with something like "<NFL.com> <ESPN.com> <PFR.com>" with each of those items being the off-site link. Bjewiki 23:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually I would argue CBS beats out NFL. NFL.com websites doesn't keep stats of players not in the league, for example, Olandis Gary:

If anything, NFL.com should be scrapped. As soon as they are out of the league, the stats disappear.Chris Nelson 23:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

That's a good point about NFL.com. To be honest, at that point, I might just vote for just keeping ESPN & Pro Football Reference. Bjewiki 23:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
The different sources complement each other. ESPN only covers contemporary players and Pro Football Reference doesn't cover defensive stats, which is why DatabaseFootball is an important source for players such as Dick Butkus. --Arcadian 22:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I was rather perturbed to see that the DatabaseFootball stats were suddenly removed without warning. As discussed above, DatabaseFootball is the only source that provides stats for retired players. (CBS doesn't either.) I have dozens of articles for retired NFL players that rely upon DatabaseFootball to provide stats. I went ahead and edited the template to restore the relevant section. -- Trowbridge (talk) 02:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

To follow up on my previous comment, I do see now that the NFL has a database of retired players as well. (My bad... I don't recall ever seeing that before.) I'm working on updating my own articles, and whatever others I can find, to use NFL.COM instead of DatabaseFootball... but still, we shouldn't remove DatabaseFootball from the template while numerous articles out there are still using it.

On another note, would anyone consider using ArenaFan.com for AFL stats instead of ArenaFootball.com? As near as I can tell, ArenaFootball does not keep stats on inactive players (though please correct me if I'm wrong). ArenaFan, on the other hand, seems to have data on all current and former players. -- Trowbridge (talk) 17:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

AAFL

Can someone add to it for the All American Football League??? --Crash Underride 19:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Header is for the name

I don't think the position and jersey number should be in the infobox header. It should be purely the person's name. Details are for inside the infobox. DoubleBlue (Talk) 17:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow

This infobox is a joke, Wikipedia is just letting some(one) twelve-year old kid ruin this infobox. It should just be deleted. --Phbasketball6 (talk) 01:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, this infobox is being replaced on the pages, editing this is a complete wast of time, eventually no player will have this infobox--Yankees10 01:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. If you don't like it, work on improving it or ignore it. I think the NFLactive/NFLretired situation is ridiculous. Why do you have to rewrite the infobox on a player's page when he retires? And then if he makes a comeback, rewrite again? It's also either intended only for NFL players or poorly named and inappropriate for other codes of football. DoubleBlue (Talk) 02:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Why not, plus NFLactive/retired doesn't have nearly as many flaws as this infobox, everything is out of place and so many useless things in it. Thanks --Phbasketball6 (talk) 15:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

What are the exact flaws? You never explain. louis 14:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Adding military info

For many people military service is a significant enough part of their life story that it should be incorporated in their infobox. Is there a way to incorporate military info like the politician infoboxes do (see for example Jack Kemp, Jon Corzine, or Arthur Schultz)?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

The short and easy answer is yes. Immediately after this infobox, add:
{{Infobox Military Person |name=Military service |branch= |serviceyears= |rank= |unit= |commands= |battles= |awards= }}
I'll think about and try out something else to see if it could be added more seamlessly and respond here if I find one. DoubleBlue (talk) 06:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
The A-Class review at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Bob Chappuis will require a seemless integration and I am sure it would be helpful in other bios. If you know how to integrate it like the politician infoboxes above that would be great.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:26, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
I decided to tinker around a bit tonight and came up with this code, an example is at User talk:Stepshep/Sandbox. I copied the code from an existing template so there shouldn't be any problems. If there are let me know and I'll double-check everything again. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 06:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
That certainly works for now. Thanks, DoubleBlue (talk) 06:58, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Could someone update the documentation accordingly, please? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Can someone make the font size a bit smaller (more like Jack Kemp, Jon Corzine, or Arthur Schultz).--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
I have changed the style of the military section to be consistent with the rest of the infobox and added the parameters to the documentation page. DoubleBlue (talk) 08:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
It looks good. Can someone do the same to {{infobox person}}. This would help me at Wikipedia:Peer review/Jon Burge/archive1.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 12:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:41, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

UFL Draft

Since the UFL holds drafts, even though it has different criteria than the NFL or CFL drafts, I think it should be included. I'm not entirely sure how to add that parameter to this, so could someone add it for me? Shootmaster 44 (talk) 02:44, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Template:Infobox pro football player

Is there a reason why we have {{Infobox pro football player}} in addition to this template? -- Whpq (talk) 16:41, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

new version

I created a new version in the sandbox which uses {{infobox}}. there should be no major visible differences in the output, but a reduction in the code complexity. if there are no objections, I will sync it in a few days. Frietjes (talk) 17:43, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

since there are no objections, I will update the template. Frietjes (talk) 16:45, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Height in the metric system

Human height is normally conveyed in the metric system using centimetres, not metres. Can this template's conversion output be corrected to reflect this fact?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 01:27, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Maintenance category added (style check)

Per request by BU Rob13 [2], I've added Category:Infobox gridiron football person articles to be checked for style for maintenance. See the category page for the populating criteria.

The category name is chosen more general, so that it may be used for more checks in the future. -DePiep (talk) 17:40, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! ~ RobTalk 20:17, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
As per your comment at your talk page, I realized I wasn't considering those articles whose deprecated parameter removal was automated through AWB, meaning I didn't also review them for small text. I think I've added some parameters to the search criteria properly. If anyone could double check that I did it properly that would be helpful, since I'm by no means a template person. See: [3]. ~ RobTalk 20:33, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
It's a 7000+ template. When you have to try edits, the sandbox is the place to go. Or ask someone. You might have ruined 7000 mainspace pages. -DePiep (talk) 21:08, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
I edited nothing in the template itself, only in the creation of the category. At worst, I broke a maintenance category that no-one asked for but me. Either way, I followed the exact syntax you inserted in choosing the fields to include in the category, so it's highly unlikely I broke anything. Given that the category looks more-or-less the same with a few more articles added, I'll take that as evidence that it worked as intended, I suppose. ~ RobTalk 21:20, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
You wrote above: "I think I've added some parameters .. anyone could double check" (double??). That's trying for me. -DePiep (talk) 00:45, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
If you disagree with making the edit, I respect your opinion, but I did not make an edit that could break anything important even if I had made a mistake. I made no edit to the template itself, just to the tracking category. If you've spotted any mistakes or errors caused by my edit, I welcome your comments so I can improve in the future. ~ RobTalk 04:27, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

The edits seemed as low-risk as they get. At the same time, using sandboxes and testcases are risk free too.—Bagumba (talk) 04:34, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Parameter for standard footnote

the footnote "Offseason and/or practice squad member only" appears in hundreds of articles. it would be good if we could have a parameter, e.g., |offseason_practice_note=yes, to standardize the text and appearance. this would also eliminate the need for injecting <nowiki /> into articles. Frietjes (talk) 14:50, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I added a |career_footnotes= for this purpose a couple of weeks ago; I would not object to it being standardised. Alakzi (talk) 14:52, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

spouse/partner

|spouse= and |partner= are not supported, giving the impression that gridiron football players do not marry. Please fix.--Auric talk 16:01, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Many of the sportsperson infobox templates do not contain this information, as it appears that the current consensus does not deem it vital or essential data to include. I do not see how omitting this somehow leads to an impression that "WAGs" do not exist. I mean see WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE: "The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. Of necessity, some infoboxes contain more than just a few fields; however, wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content". The purpose of infoboxes is not to include EVERY single detail. Zzyzx11 (talk) 16:10, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 17 December 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved as proposed. It is clear that "CFL" belongs in the name of this template. (non-admin closure) Bradv 14:14, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Template:Infobox gridiron football person → Template:Infobox CFL biography – As the Intended uses section states, this infobox is only for use on pages of former Canadian Football League (CFL) players and coaches. The template should be named accordingly to reflect this intended usage, a la Template:Infobox NFL biography. Someone looking for the appropriate infobox to use for a CFL player would likely expect "CFL" or "Canadian football" in the name of the template. Gridiron football encompasses both Canadian and American football, so the current name could be misleading. Furthermore, many former NFL player pages use this template, so this name change would make it more obvious to editors that those pages are using an incorrect template. Lizard (talk) 04:25, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

We don't really need to name it to "Canadian football" just for the very few CIS only people. There's way more non-NFL people using infobox "NFL" biography anyway. Unless we are gonna call that one American football biography. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 19:59, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

CHOF parameter needs rework

It looks like the CHOF parameter, designed to generate a link to the Canadian Football Hall of Fame website for the given person no longer works as designed. My guess is that the external site was reorganised. At first glance, ALL the links will no longer work, requiring a rework of this template and all the articles that use the parameter.--Arg342 (talk) 10:20, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Arg342, can you provide a link to an example? I recall fixing this in another template. Frietjes (talk) 15:07, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
never mind, I figured it out. it will take some time to track and fix all of them, but it shouldn't be that difficult to do. if anyone wants to help, you have to change the old |CFHOF= to either |CFHOFPlayerID= or |CFHOFBuilderID= or |CFHOFReporterID= with the id from the CFHOF website. Frietjes (talk) 17:15, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Nice work, Frietjes! Very elegant and greatly appreciated! --Arg342 (talk) 09:33, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Discussion regarding the birth date and birth place parameters.

See discussion. Thanks. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 18:36, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

See Template talk:Infobox CFL biography#CHOF parameter needs rework, above.

It appears the CAHOF changed the URL structure of inductee articles:

  • http://www.cfhof.ca/hof-player-details/?id=185 (prior URL format)
  • http://www.cfhof.ca/members/terry-vaughn/ (current URL format)

The result is the Infobox CAHOF links are now broken in both Infobox formats, where the CAHOF Infobox link now renders as the CAHOF front page rather than the inductee's page.

Terry Vaughn

Archive.org / Wayback Machine implies CAHOF changed the URL structure from the "/hof-player-details/?id=[N]" format to "/members/[First]-[Last]" sometime after Sep 2017.[4]

It looks like both Infoboxes currently generate the former URL structure via the "| CFHOFPlayerID = 185" parameter.

So it appears the fix involves capture of the "[First]_[Last]" string used by CAHOF as a new Infobox parameter, which is req'd to render the CAHOF's new URL format. UW Dawgs (talk) 22:12, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Looks like 300 or so articles. Category:Canadian Football Hall of Fame inductees UW Dawgs (talk) 01:51, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
UW Dawgs, I switched it back to use |CFHOF=. sad that they feature such a prominent link to the WP page, but yet, do not care about breaking links from WP to their site. in any case, all pages using the various |CFHOFPlayerID= or |CFHOFBuilderID= or |CFHOFReporterID= will need to be corrected to use |CFHOF= instead. I put some transitional code in there to attempt to automatically generate the new link, but from previous experience, this is not completely safe. the pages using this infobox that need to be corrected will be listed in Category:Pages using linking to the cfhof with a possibly broken link (which I will remove/delete once it's empty). any other old links outside of this template can be found with this link search); for example this one. Frietjes (talk) 11:50, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
fixed Template:Infobox NFL biography as well. same tracking category. Frietjes (talk) 13:29, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
okay, all the ones outside of these templates have been fixed (search 1 / search 2). all that is left are the articles in the tracking category, which are being "auto corrected" at the moment. the only one that I found which was unfixable was Paul Brule who was inducted in 2018 but doesn't appear to have a page yet? Frietjes (talk) 15:13, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Believe this is now resolved. Tracking cat has been cleared and the "otuside" links are fine. Thank you for your help with the templates, tracking cat, and data cleanup. UW Dawgs (talk) 20:30, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
great. I removed the old code and tracking. any reverts/rollbacks/etc will show up in the normal "unsupported parameters" tracking category. Frietjes (talk) 21:45, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 24 October 2018

Please fix the link for the College HOF (| CollegeHOF =) parameter since it is broken. The link in the parameter should be changed to https://footballfoundation.org/hof.aspx?hof={{{CollegeHOF}}}. – Sabbatino (talk) 09:15, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Done — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:08, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 6 March 2019

Some style templates have been renamed. Could someone please edit this central template to reflect the change?

  • NFLPrimaryColor -> Gridiron primary color
  • NFLSecondaryColor -> Gridiron secondary color
  • NFLAltPrimaryColor -> Gridiron alt primary color
  • NFLAltSecondaryColor -> Gridiron alt secondary color

Thanks.

HandsomeFella (talk) 20:59, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done -- /Alex/21 12:50, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 19 June 2019

Hello,

With the addition of the Global player designation for 2019 (Source:https://www.cfl.ca/2019/06/11/global-additions-set-make-history-week-1/), please change label8 from this: 

| label8         = [[Canadian Football League#Players and compensation|CFL status]]
| data8          = {{#switch:{{lc:{{{import|}}}}}
 | =
 | yes = International
 | #default = National

to this: 

| label8         = [[Canadian Football League#Players and compensation|CFL status]]
| data8          = {{#switch:{{lc:{{{import|}}}}}
 | =
 | yes = International
 | global = Global
 | #default = National

Sorry, I don't know how to make that look good on a talk page. The league may further update the "International" designation to be re-named "American", but nothing has been officially announced, so I'm not requesting a change yet.

Thanks, Cmm3 (talk) 01:10, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done DannyS712 (talk) 02:46, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! Cmm3 (talk) 01:08, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 12 February 2020

Hello,

The league has updated their page and now calls formerly "International" players "American" players now (Source:https://www.cfl.ca/game-rule-ratio/). Please change label8 from this: 

| label8         = [[Canadian Football League#Players and compensation|CFL status]]
| data8          = {{#switch:{{lc:{{{import|}}}}}
 | =
 | yes = International
 | global = Global
 | #default = National

to this: 

| label8         = [[Canadian Football League#Players and compensation|CFL status]]
| data8          = {{#switch:{{lc:{{{import|}}}}}
 | =
 | yes = American
 | global = Global
 | #default = National

Thanks, Cmm3 (talk) 03:27, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done Please update the documentation. Cabayi (talk) 07:48, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 10 May 2022

Change all instances of the string "Infobox gridiron football person/position" to "Infobox CFL biography/position". — Foxtrot1296 (talk) 14:56, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. It appears that the gridiron../position subtemplate is used only under label9, which is for American football positions. Feel free to make changes in the sandbox and testcases page to show the changes that you want to see. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:07, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
After further research, I see that one is a redirect to the other, so there does not appear to be a reason to make this behind-the-scenes change. Is there some benefit that you seek from this proposed change? – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:09, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

NFL.com has changed their URL structure and so all of our "Playing stats at NFL.com" links are broken. I can't figure out how to resolve this problem, they've changed this id-number thing out with something completely different. – Thjarkur (talk) 20:28, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Almost three years on and no resolution. Perhaps it should be removed from the template? It looks at the moment as if it is just based on the player's name, but I don't know how it works for shared names. 176.254.212.225 (talk) 07:07, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

image_size parameter missing?

Hello, was adding an image to Jamie Robinson (Canadian football) and there isn't an image_size parameter for this template? --Engineerchange (talk) 17:11, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Use |image_upright= to size the image. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:18, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
@Engineerchange: "image_size" is deprecated per WP:IMAGESIZE, by the way. "image_upright" – or "upright" in some other infoboxes – is to be used. Robby.is.on (talk) 09:22, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Infobox_Canadian_Football_League_biography/Archive_2&oldid=1244514083"