Template talk:Infobox NFL biography/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 → Archive 10

Human height and the metric system

I changed the output of this template's conversion of imperial units (ft & in) to metric units from meters to centimeters, as this is the norm for human height in the English-speaking world. This was undone by User:bender235, who says "in fact, meter with two decimals is the common unit". Just wondering what he/she is basing that on.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 09:12, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I strongly suspect that neither of you is correct; and that usage differs as it does for distance and liquid volume, depending on where in the world one is. As such, WP:ENGVAR norms should apply; and NFL is a US matter. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:52, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Andy Mabbett ft is the main metric used. The question is if this should be converted to meters or centimetres. At least in Greece, the conversion is to meters. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:57, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Two quick reminders: 1) This is the English Wikipedia, 2) WP:Verifiability.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 10:03, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, this is the NFL player infobox, and unfortunately NFL.com does not list metric heights. But NBA.com may be a good comparison: Example (as you can see in the "Vitals" section, height is listed in metres with two decimals, not in centimetres). Also, compare Euroleague profiles. --bender235 (talk) 10:04, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I think we can do a little bit better than that, folks.

Oh, and ask any Canadian or Australian.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 10:20, 12 June 2014 (UTC) Bolding added.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 14:13, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Gibson Flying V I think non-UK Europeans would use meters. Moreover, meters is the official SI unit. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:22, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Not quite. SI units include base units (such as the metre) and derived units (such as the centimetre). And being the English Wikipedia, norms in non-English speaking countries clearly take a back seat to those of English speaking countries (e.g. we similarly exclude the use of commas as in 1,97m which is common in Europe. It's always 197cm in high quality English sources).--Gibson Flying V (talk) 10:35, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Gibson Flying V OK. I am good either way. Afterall, cm to m conversion is easy. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:49, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
yes, we should use cm since it avoids the comma vs. decimal point language issue, and as Magioladitis points out, conversion is trivial. Frietjes (talk) 14:21, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't see "comma vs. decimal" being an issue at all. Especially since we have to deal with this "issue" in all sorts of contexts, such as $123,456 or 7.8 mi. Thankfully, MOS:DECIMAL is more than clear about this. --bender235 (talk) 21:19, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
"comma vs. decimal" is not an issue. This was simply an example of the way things are done in Europe having no sway over the English Wikipedia's MOS.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 21:23, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
But I think perhaps Frietjes' concern may be that novice users from Europe can come along and try to put 1,97 into the template, and using cm instead of metres precludes this.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 21:47, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Even if, they'd get an error message and correct their mistake. Big deal. I don't see why we should mold after corner cases. --bender235 (talk) 22:11, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
We're not. We're molding after WP:SOURCES. The comma thing is just an added bonus.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 22:35, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
See, that's where you're wrong. This is the NFL player infobox. The metric units in some sports medicine journal or book on nutrition does not decide what we do in this template. Besides, one could easily find other sports medicine journals or other books on nutrition that would list "1.83 m" instead of "183 cm". --bender235 (talk) 12:22, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, the thing about that bender235, is that's actually where I'm right. Perhaps you can find published, English-language sources of comparable quality that use metres (though I doubt it), but for each one of those there will be about 100 that use centimetres. I understand that metres is what you're used to seeing/hearing in Europe, but in Anglo-sphere sources of the quality an encyclopedia should be taking cues from it is an oddity. Drivers licenses, missing/wanted person notices, government websites, any kind of textbook or scientific publication, the entire medical field, you name it: they almost all use cm. Even if you want to factor in the prevalence of metres in Europe, I'd say it's more than cancelled out by the prevalence of cm in Asia. It's not even a close thing. Not sure how to convince you of that. Maybe going and doing that source checking for yourself?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 00:51, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Since you're arguing on a general level instead of just NFL players in particular, I'd suggest you start a general discussion at MOS:NUM to find general consensus. I think consistency throughout Wikipedia is the key here, and so far I'm seeing metre instead of centrimetre used on soccer players, tennis players, rugby players, cyclists, handball players, golfers, and others. On the other hand, there are also centrimetres used on hockey players, track athletes, and others. The fact that we don't have a general guideline makes it impossible to change these in one way or the other. Also note that the default output of {{height}} is metre instead of centimetre: {{Height|ft=6|in=2}} → 6 ft 2 in (1.88 m). Before making wholesale changes in either direction, I'd like to see an MOS guideline established from consensus. --bender235 (talk) 10:50, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
We all would.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 13:32, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
But to be honest, as someone who's used to the metric system everyday, I prefer the "1.88 m" format over "188 cm". --bender235 (talk) 14:45, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, you've already made that very clear. Thank you.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 14:52, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Alright. Leave me a message when you start a discussion over at MOS, please. --bender235 (talk) 18:13, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
You've yet to present any compelling argument for metres here. Are you going to present one there instead? Why wait?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 01:35, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Just like MOS:ENGVAR, this is purely a stylistic question. I simply prefer metre over centrimetre, because I'm used to it. --bender235 (talk) 17:12, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
But American, British and Commonwealth sources all appear to reveal a preference for centimetres. You seem to be contradicting yourself. You've not forgotten what the 'ENG' in 'ENGVAR' stands for, have you?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 21:04, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
ENGVAR means that there is not right or wrong answer to the question whether to write "labour" or "labor". It's only a matter of personal preferences. That's what I meant. --bender235 (talk) 11:48, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
So you concede that the vast majority of American English reliable sources prefer using cm instead of m, but in spite of that we should stick with m here, as cm might offend the personal sensibilities of some European readers? Now, you seem like a fairly experienced editor so I'm almost certain you know better than that.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 23:26, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
I didn't concede anything. "1.88 m" is used just much as "188 cm" in RS. NBA.com uses the first, NHL.com uses the latter. --bender235 (talk) 06:36, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Whether you concede it or not, it is the case. Now, is that the extent of your sampling?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 08:20, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
what error message? try {{convert|1,65|m|ft in|abbr=on}} sometime. the fact that we don't have to worry about it happening with cm is, as Gibson Flying V says, an added bonus. Frietjes (talk) 23:03, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

This is pretty much a rehash of discussion prompted by Gibson Flying V at Template_talk:Height/Archive_2#Human_height_is_more_commonly_expressed_in_centimetres_than_metres and Template_talk:Height/Archive_3#Straw_poll_on_units_of_measure_output_by_this_template, which had no consensus on when cm should be used over m, aside from say Australia or New Zealand subjects.—Bagumba (talk) 05:50, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks User:Bagumba. Although anyone who follows those links and isn't deterred by the length of the 'discussion' (which you yourself prolonged as long as you possibly could) will see that there was overwhelming consensus for cm over m. Why it's not the default output is a question that remains totally unanswered.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 07:19, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
So is there a case to be made here for output in metres? Or shall we go back to centimetres?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 14:13, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Proof by assertion still? I suggest you listen to others' opposition here, as was suggested in the prior height discussion for association football. Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 07:26, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
What am I proving by assertion? I don't know what you mean. There's some reason that metres should be favoured that hasn't been mentioned yet? I'm still waiting for a single one.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 07:56, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
I undid your recent edit, the same one another editor already reverted of your's two months ago. Given your topic ban on height in association football, especially after the closer of the topic ban warned you that "harsher sanctions were suggested in this discussion and it is very likely that the community will impose them if he is the cause of any further disruption", I suggest that you not assume that silence is consensus regarding your edits regarding height in sports topics.—Bagumba (talk) 22:28, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm going to assist you in overcoming your unhealthy preoccupation with me by ignoring any further ad hominem remarks you may wish to make, and reminding you to assume good faith. I'm not in the least bit afraid of discussing the actual issue at hand here, or inviting wider opinion, and nor should you be. Now, I did not "assume that silence is consensus", but I did get silence from you in response to my points/questions above. This discussion so far includes two users condoning the change to cm, and (after the point was made that it "is a US matter") one user from Europe relating that they're used to seeing m instead of cm (along with commas instead of decimal points too, no doubt) and arguing that medical journals and science textbooks should be disregarded. ("...irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, those that show no understanding of the matter of issue" may be discarded.) Like yourself, that user ultimately ended up silent as well. Add to this the overwhelming majority of first-rate sources that use cm plus the no less overwhelming consensus amongst editors seen at Human height and {{Height}} favoring cm, and it seems there's every reason in the world to change it back and none at all for your reversion.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 08:00, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
I can certainly see your point. When an obvious improvement is undone and deliberately mislabeled disruption however, it's bound to be discussed.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 03:06, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Since no one appears to object, (and frankly, why would they?) I'm going to change it back to cm and I trust it won't be reverted this time.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 23:43, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

  • What part of people have objected every time you have done this do you not understand? Stop futzing with long-estbalished uniform formatting. And that includes making unilateral changes to this template as well as Infobox athlete and Infobox swimmer. Your changes are not welcome. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:35, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for joining in. What you say however stands in stark contrast to the following:
OK. I am good either way. Afterall, cm to m conversion is easy. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:49, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
yes, we should use cm since it avoids the comma vs. decimal point language issue, and as Magioladitis points out, conversion is trivial. Frietjes (talk) 14:21, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Not to mention the links to consensus in favour of cm elsewhere. It's a shame that you've decided to zero in on me and not face up to the issue at hand, because editors willing to do that are what's really needed. I invite you to try and address the points I've made above. The side in defence of metres seems to me to be the one still found wanting. If however I've missed something, I would welcome the revelation.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 13:00, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Can college major be added?

I think that this is an important piece of information if they were in college. Yes, they're NFL players but if we're including personal information in articles, I think this is a relevant piece of information and may even help in understanding how they play. Last night, for example, during the Thanksgiving 2014 game of the Seahawks vs 49ers the commentators mentioned that Richard Sherman's intellect is essential to his success. Besides, you've got other non-NFL relevant information such as birth place. Why not college major? MagnoliaSouth (talk) 21:16, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

  • MS, the template includes fields for high school and college alma maters, but the template has already become excessively long -- especially when the subject player has a long career with numerous honors and awards. The proper place to discuss majors, degrees and academic history is the main body text. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:07, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Infobox_NFL_biography/Archive_4&oldid=1073143760"