Template talk:Infobox ice hockey biography

Error in template?

There seems to be an error on the weight variable in the template. See Paul Healey. LarRan (talk) 20:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I think someone is playing with the convert template which this template uses. I will take a look. -Djsasso (talk) 20:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Wierd its converting all the weights wrong on all pages. This however is the only one giving the nasty red error. -Djsasso (talk) 20:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok based on a conversation at Template talk:Convert it looks like its a wikiwide issue at the moment.-Djsasso (talk) 20:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Remove nickname field

Per some initial discussion at WT:HOCKEY, I am suggesting that we remove the nickname field from the template. Very, very few players have actual nicknames, and fewer still are notable for them. The players with notable nicknames already have them listed in the prose section. The nickname field really only serves as a breeding ground for WP:LAME edit wars over various non-nicknames, and as a magnet for vandalism. Thus, I believe it should be removed. Seeking consensus before making this change. Resolute 15:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it is just fine to remove it from the infobox. Any actual noteworthy nicknames can be brought up within the lead or somewhere else within the article. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

As I mentioned in the other discussion I completely agree, anyone with a notable nickname like The Great One can have it mentioned in their prose. -Djsasso (talk) 15:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm all for removing it. However, there are some legitimate sourced nicknames that are mentioned in infoboxes that aren't mentioned in the article. Would it be possible to move them to the talk page?-Wafulz (talk) 15:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm all for it! --Krm500 (talk) 15:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I could do that as I went through removing the field. -Djsasso (talk) 15:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it is OK to remove the field. Any (future) invalid nickname field in an article implementation of the infobox template will probably be hidden from display, unless it is moved to talkpage of the article (or other location) by a bot. Plain remove (not move) of data in the field of an article makes me doubtful. --Bamsefar75 (talk) 17:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with removing the field. Like with a number of other elements ("not to be forgotten" lists, for instance), they're prey to info creep by any editor who can find some sportswriter to have uttered something once that can be construed as a nickname, and demands that said obscure nickname share equal time with "The Golden Jet," "The Great One," "Cyclone," etc. 'Tis a pity, but the end result of not doing this is having an infobox clogged with ten so-called "nicknames" per player.  RGTraynor  20:24, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Error in Firefox with Modern skin

This did not occur before and seems to be related to the removal of the nickname. But something else may have changed.

In firefox, using the Modern skin, the template does not appear on the right. It pushes the text of the article down. If I change to the default monobook skin, it does appear on the right. Alaney2k (talk) 16:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

You are right, I just checked and it is doing that, however, I looked at the code Resolute removed and it would not be that change that caused it. Sometimes they work on other templates that this one calls and it causes unforseen changes. I will look to see if I can find what might be doing that. Could be the font or something like that which the modern skin uses. In fact I just looked at the version prior to Resolute's and it is doing it as well. I am guessing they have mucked with something in the skin. I will check some of the other skins.-Djsasso (talk) 16:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Name

{{editprotected}}

In common with the vast majority of biographical infoboxes (e.g. {{Infobox person}}), I think that this template should include a "name" parameter. It could also then be upgraded to emit an hCard microformat. Would anyone object? Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 11:18, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the name parameter has been rejected in the past. Not really sure what the other thing you mentioned would do when it comes to infoboxes. -Djsasso (talk) 15:59, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Because it was not wanted in the past doesn't mean that consensus can't change now ;-) Do you know why it was not considered necessary?

For more on the hCard microformat, please see those pages; but, in brief, it tells computers (such as individual users' and search spiders) what the information in that infobox is about. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 10:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh I didn't say it couldn't change. I think it just had to do with being redundant. -Djsasso (talk) 17:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, if there are no current objections (in which case let's debate them) I propose to add a name parameter, as used in most biographical infoboxes. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

My proposal is to replace:

<code>
{| class="infobox" cellpadding="2" style="width: 19em; empty-cells:show; background-color: toccolours; line-height: 1.4em; border: 1px solid toccolours; font-size: 85%;"
<!-- ###### Image -->
{{#if:{{{image|}}}|
{{!}} colspan="2" style="text-align: center; padding-top: 0.6em; padding-bottom: 0.7em; border-bottom: 1px solid #ccddee;" {{!}} [[Image:{{{image}}}|{{{image_size}}}|center]] {{#if:{{{image_caption<includeonly>|</includeonly>}}}|<br />''{{{image_caption}}}''}}}}
</code>

with:

<code>
{| class="infobox vcard" cellpadding="2" style="width: 19em; empty-cells:show; background-color: toccolours; line-height: 1.4em; border: 1px solid toccolours; font-size: 85%;"
<!-- ###### Image -->
{{!}} class="fn" colspan="2" style="text-align: center;" {{!}} {{#if:{{{name|}}} {{{name}}}|{{{pagename}}} }}
{{#if:{{{image|}}}|
{{!}} colspan="2" style="text-align: center; padding-top: 0.6em; padding-bottom: 0.7em; border-bottom: 1px solid #ccddee;" {{!}} [[Image:{{{image}}}|{{{image_size}}}|center]] {{#if:{{{image_caption<includeonly>|</includeonly>}}}|<br />''{{{image_caption}}}''}}}}
</code>

Can someone please check my code, before I make an {{editprotected}} request? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Personally I would take the suggestion to WT:HOCKEY first since they have a big stake and not alot of people probably watch this talk page. -Djsasso (talk) 16:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Done; though I do think my posts here give fair warning. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

While I find adding a name parameter to be pointless in general, as it is obvious who the infobox is referring to by the name of the article, if the hCard microformat is viewed as a useful feature, and this is required, then I have no issue with adding it. Resolute 20:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

To be clear, I don't disagree with your proposal, just since its such a highly used template that I thought maybe it should be mentioned there. If you feel its necessary then go ahead, though I too think its pretty pointless, except perhaps for the microformat. -Djsasso (talk) 20:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

No comments, so I've added an {{editprotected}} request. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

{{EP}} Stifle (talk) 10:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Template code is screwed up now, infoboxes with images become twice as wide... —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 16:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I see that someone has already reverted the template, so I can't see the effects; but can anybody suggest what's wrong, please? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe this version will work:

{| class="infobox vcard" cellpadding="2" style="width:19em; empty-cells:show; line-height:1.4; font-size:85%;"
|-
! class="fn" colspan="2" {{!}} {{{name|{{PAGENAME}}}}}
<!-- ###### Image -->
|-
{{#if:{{{image|}}}|
{{!}} colspan="2" style="text-align: center; padding-top: 0.6em; padding-bottom: 0.7em; border-bottom: 1px solid #ccddee;" {{!}} [[Image:{{{image}}}|{{{image_size}}}|center]] {{#if:{{{image_caption<includeonly>|</includeonly>}}}|<br />''{{{image_caption}}}''}}}}

The problem was that you put the two cells in the same row. I also corrected several other mistakes—some old, some new. ({{PAGENAME}} is a magic word, not a parameter, and "toccolours" is a class name, not a color). —Ms2ger (talk) 17:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I've added another {{editprotected}} request. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Consider using a template sandbox. Stifle (talk) 11:23, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Languages

fi:Malline:Jääkiekkoilija Ville Siliämaa (talk) 07:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Leagues

With the growth of the KHL, players playing in Europe during and since the lockout season, and players generally just moving around, should additional fields be added to the league/team fields in order to accomodate multiple professional leagues? (such as league1=NHL, league2=SM-liiga, league3=KHL, etc to go along with corresponding team fields linked to the league fields). It could also be changed so as to not link to the NHL once a professional team is entered into the currently existing team field. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 21:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

It actually doesn't automatically link to the NHL, the current "league" field means the league the player is currently playing in. In general we just add the league next to team names in the "played_for" field to signify which league the team was from if its different from the league they are currently playing in. ie "Modo (SEL)" There are a few other ways its been done and its been discussed the best way to do it and I don't know that we ever ended on a specific way. But the above example is one of the more prevalent. Another example we use is found on Wayne Gretzky. Which way is used seems to be personal preference. -Djsasso (talk) 21:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

For currently active players, the field is "former_teams". The "played_for" field is for retired players. Not sure why, but both fields can be used while a player still being active. The "former_teams" can only be used when active (in a league). --Bamsefar75 (talk) 22:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

You are right I mixed up the fields. The reason for both is that it changes the look of the box. Instead of saying former teams it says pro clubs once they are retired. -Djsasso (talk) 01:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

International Version?

what would be the international version with international measurement units? --ThurnerRupert (talk) 00:48, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

This version shows both measurements. You have to enter in inches etc but when it shows up, it shows in both inches and cm. -Djsasso (talk) 15:24, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Player, later coach or GM?

There probably should be a field that allows to show if a player becomes a coach, GM, or an owner (as in the cases of of Lemieux or Gretzky). Those fields still reflect on their current careers and legacy in hockey. --Pennsylvania Penguin (talk) 14:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

EditProtected Request

Replace {{{death_place}}} with {{{death_place|}}} to make that parameter invisible if it is not specified. LegoK^ontribsT^alkM 22:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

 Done -Djsasso (talk) 02:16, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

italics

I'd like to bring up again the suggestion that italics around team names be removed. It seems like an unnecessary addition to the template. Thoughts? Esrever ^(klaT) 03:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

It's only the current team that is italicized so its stands out from the list of former teams. Just looking at your last contrib you are probably looking at Jeff Carter who isn't a good example since he has only played for one team. You might want to look at say Marian Hossa. -Djsasso (talk) 03:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Title

This infobox has no title at all, which makes it hard to guess what it's describing (a perons's ice hockey career) when you were not looking for ice hockey players. Maybe add 'Ice Hockey' at the top? Or even: North American Ice Hockey? (Or is this template also used for e.g. Sweden?) Classical geographer (talk) 12:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

It's used for ice hockey players in any country. Personally I don't really see the point since the infobox is only on players its obvious its for players. -Djsasso (talk) 13:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the point of having a title is if a person is known for being more than a ice hockey player. That is, if they also have played professional soccer/football, or have been politicians, or any profession for which there exists an infobox. But those cases probably should be solved by moving the boxes to their respective sections, so the section title shows the subject. I dont know if all non-hockey wikipedians agree -- some infoboxes out there have titles, for some reason? --Bamsefar75 (talk) 15:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Personally I am not a fan of multiple boxes, on pages that would have multiples I always prefer to see a custom table done on the page itself that combines all aspects of their notability. Since its rare to be equally notable for more than one thing. That being said I it does make sense in the case of multiple boxes but I still don't see it as necessary. Personally I think infoboxes look better with nothing at the top as far as title or name goes. But that could just be me. -Djsasso (talk) 16:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I have used multiple boxes for Ronald Pettersson and I don't think it looks weird. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 21:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

There are some instances where it does work fine like that one, but on pages that are very short or in cases where the two infoboxes are different sizes it can look like it is just thrown in. -Djsasso (talk) 00:06, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Remove flagicons?

Can someone remove the flagicon from the nationality field, per MOS:FLAG#Use_of_flags_for_sportspeople? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hippo43 (talk • contribs) 22:35, March 20, 2009

It is a guideline and not a policy, so if it were to be removed it shall be up for discussion. But in this case I don't see any need since this infobox adhere to the guideline; Nationality is used to inform readers of which country the player represent, or would represent, in international competitions governed by the IIHF. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 21:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean by " But in this case I don't see any need since this infobox adhere to the guideline". --hippo43 (talk) 22:28, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I think he means that the nationality field in this infobox is supposed to be used to indicate the player's national team. The guideline recommends so, but the infobox instructions are unclear on this. There is also a separate birth_place field with country (the guideline is supposed to be moved from birth_date field), which suggests that the nationality field does not indicate place of birth. However, there is two fields for nationality. That might be a topic for discussion, since the guideline recommends the "most apt" country is to be used. --Bamsefar75 (talk) 06:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I will have to find the link, but this has been discussed at length and came down to the fact that flags will continue to be used in hockey infobox. I forget on where the hockey flag preferences page is on WP:HOCKEY -Djsasso (talk) 13:40, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't WP:MOS supersede WP:HOCKEY? In that case, the former policy should be adhered with regards to flag icons. B/c other sport wikiprojects follow WP:MOSFLAG to a tee. --Madchester (talk) 03:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:IAR supersedes WP:MOSFLAG which is only a guideline. And not having flags gets in the way of making a better encyclopedia, so its clearly an IAR situation. -Djsasso (talk) 12:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

While I am abivalent on the use of flagicons - they can stay or they can go - the fact that other sport projects do things a certain way holds no value to me as an argument, because frankly, many of the other sporting projects have standards that I find completely ridiculous. And, fwiw, I see no reason to IAR a guideline anyway. There seems to be no consensus to change at this point, so I would suggest that policy overrules the MOSFLAG guideline. Resolute 14:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Using the flag in addition to the country's name is redundant. I think the flagicons should go.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 19:14, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

If the flag icons are kept this template should be using the ice hockey flag icon template.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 11:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

That template links to a different article and would not always be correct for this usage. -Djsasso (talk) 11:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Why would it not be correct?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 11:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Because it links to the national team of said country, which this field does not always signify that they played for the national team. While it is true that if a player played for the Canadian national team they will obviously have a Canadian flag. But not all people with a Canadian flag will have played for the national team. Basically it creates an incorrect association. -Djsasso (talk) 12:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Krm500 and Bamsefar75 wrote above that the nationality field indicates the player's national team eligibility. Is that incorrect?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 18:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Correct. But the point is that it would give the impression they were on the team if we linked directly to it. -Djsasso (talk) 18:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

If the field is about the national team it should link to it.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 18:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The field is about their nationality which is determined by which team they have played for internationally or would play for internationally should they make the team. -Djsasso (talk) 19:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

So we agree that the link to the national team is appropriate?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 20:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

No, it would be incorrect since the player may never have played for his national team. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 00:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

For me, the flagicons should go. Djsasso's point about linking is a good one. Further, some players who have never played international hockey will be eligible for more than one country - how do we assign a sporting nationality to them? --hippo43 (talk) 03:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposal

While I remain neutral on the existence of the flagicons, I do recognize that they are redundant, since the birthplace field lists the same country 99% of the time. Perhaps we could rename the Nationality field to something along the lines of "International representation" (something shorter, obviously), and use it only with players who have actually played internationally. And yes, for players who have switched nationalities, multiple entries would be required. Such a change would necessitate a whole lot of work, however, as the field would have to be removed from hundreds, if not thousands, of articles. Resolute 03:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

This could probably be rigged up in AWB if there is consesus to do this, might want to link from the main wp:hockey talk page to this discussion though as it will affect thousands of articles. -Djsasso (talk) 12:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support I like reducing the redundancy. "National team" would work.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 06:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support I personally don't like the flags. Nerdy/geeky/nationalistic/needless eye candy, especially if all it represents nationality. And if I had been born in the USSR, I would probably not want the hammer and sickle next to my name. But I can see it looks appropriate on an international play entry. Alaney2k (talk) 21:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support Agree with SaskatchewanSenator - 'National team' seems the way to go. --hippo43 (talk) 21:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support. The flagicon should not be automatic, It can be decided on a article per article basis. Rettetast (talk) 00:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Meaning of the nationality field

There seems to be a consensus that the nationality field is to indicate which country the player is eligible to represent in international competitions governed by the IIHF (see above in the Remove flagicons? discussion). I think this should be added to the template documentation.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 03:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you are mistaking what we are saying. We use the nation they represent to determine what country we put in the field in situations where their nationality is ambiguous. The field is not about what country the player represents internationally. This is because nationality is not determined by place of birth in all situations. So we needed a fixed NPOV way to determine which nationality to use. It's just part of the criteria used to determine what we put in there. -Djsasso (talk) 12:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Let's hold off on this discussion until there is a decision on Resolute's nationality proposal above.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 18:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

documentation change

{{Editprotected}}

This template needs to be changed to use the /doc subpage system. I have changes I'd like to make to the documentation. Powers ^T 00:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done

Seems an "Expression error" appears now, but only in the transcluded doc (see), not in the doc itself. --Bamsefar75 (talk) 11:05, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Notable amateur players

Oh, and what is to be done with notable amateur players? The career_start field is required and the Pro career field always appears in the infobox. Powers ^T 00:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Typically we fill in "TBD" in the career start field for junior players. i.e.: John Tavares (ice hockey). Resolute 00:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Team Colors

I think we should format this template with team colors, similar to Template:Infobox NFLactive. Bmf 51 (talk) 04:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

It has been discussed before, and generally the consensus at WP:HOCKEY is that we prefer the neutral, consistent, colours. Personally, I find those gaudy, bright, templates to be a major distraction from the article itself. Resolute 18:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it's pretty, but meh. Bmf 51 (talk) 02:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

From the creator of template:infobox NHL player

Someone needs to update this thing. I created it years ago in my spare time and it's still unchanged. Either I was that good, or the people in control are that lazy/uneducated on html. If that's the case, it needs to be unlocked and people who can edit it should be allowed to, because an awards dropdown menu needs to be added, the teams parameter is unprofessional and needs to look like nfl/euro league infoboxes, and various other things need to be changed (like the overall shape/design of the box, to fit in more detailed information). I was going to do it today, but I'm kind of pissed off to find out that it has been locked out from other editors. Wikipedia is supposed to be free edit, this is complete BS