Template talk:Infobox rugby league biography/Infobox upgrade 2008 page 2

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

Do we have any consensus?

This discussion has been open for twelve days. Are we any further forward? •Florrie•leave a note• 10:10, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Yep, there has been sufficient time for people to vote. Height and weight and colours are the only two issues without a unanimous decision. I therefore suggest we push ahead and close the other issues and get this infobox up and running. For the moment in new infoboxes can we press on with no colours (as is the case at the moment) until we get some sort of consensus? That is something that can be easily changed eventually if there is support the other way. As for height and weight, I say we just leave everything as is on each article at the moment, but tag retired player infoboxes with a "retired" field just in case we want to easily remove height and weight in the future. How does this sound for everyone? MDM (talk) 11:54, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
I didn't even know that it was up for discussion again. My only real bone of contention is in England we have clubs that are professional but exist outside Super League. Are they to be put in an 'Other clubs' section or not? I will read through the other comments at work tomorrow and offer responses.Londo06 19:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
I've already said there are problems with the classification of clubs that have been in and out of Super League. CorleoneSerpicoMontana (talk) 21:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
I have posted the changes for the infobox on the WP:BOTREQ page. So theres no porblem there. The bot will only convert the infobox not change/add the parameters.  The Windler talk  05:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Does that mean you are pushing through the changes. There are at least three parties that have not added to the new poll, myself, Alexsanderson83 and Londo06 who have not added there thoughts to the new section. There are still issues on the 'Other clubs' section, and looking at the Brett Kimmorley article the casual reader wouldn't even know what club he plays for. CorleoneSerpicoMontana (talk) 12:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I thought of another issue that is a Northern Hemisphere issue, squad numbers, something that belongs on a Super League player infobox, but not necessary for NRL players.Londo06 09:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Added my thoughts to all sections, happy with any given outcome, but do have major concerns over the possibility of clubs being ineligible for the infobox under the current rationale. The 'Other clubs' line seems to be an appropriate middle ground.Londo06 14:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I will this poll again when I get some free time at work tomorrow.CorleoneSerpicoMontana (talk) 17:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Done. CorleoneSerpicoMontana (talk) 16:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Propose the sounding out of linking of App, T, G, FG, and P as while everyone here realises what they stand for a casual reader may not.Londo06 15:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. MDM (talk) 22:29, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I really don't want the infobox rollout to be delayed any further. On the issue of defining First Grade and whether listed clubs should only be from the top flight, I think this needs to have two different definitions - one for the Northern Hemisphere and one for the Southern Hemisphere. We simply cannot have one rule to cover two different competition formats and so I say we all use common sense and have two different rules instead. I am also willing to make a compromise to some - I will change my votes for the junior club field and the height and weight field if others will change their votes on the colours issue. MDM (talk) 22:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I have closed the two First Grade polls and will let common sense prevail on those issues. There is a uniform push from Australian editors for one direction and an opposite push from northern editors. MDM (talk) 22:29, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
There is also the issue of SL players having squad numbers. If the base code is similar to the cricket statistics box then it shouldn't be too big an issue. Someone brought up the issue with Noddy's infobox not making it too clear which club he plays for, if one at all reading through the points box. I do think these issues do need to be addressed before we undergo a more complete roll-out of the new infobox.Londo06 22:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
The number problem can be easily solved as can the current club issue. I'll have a think about that. Also regarding the colours issue - my vote is against them. As promised, I'll change my votes on the other two issues if we have consensus against the use colours. MDM (talk) 23:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
And if an Australian goes to play in the SL, he has another half dozen teams added to his infobox that wouldn't be there if he stayed in the NRL? Or do only second-tier teams that he might play for in the SL count, not previous teams in Aus?
Australian First Grade teams (as we defined earlier) would be shown. Then once he moves any SL or National League team he plays for will be shown as well. MDM (talk) 23:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why this disappeared from this page and I don't know why no one would even comment on it. I think it's a pretty sound resolution. It'd be nice if I could get some feedback.--Jeff79 (talk) 02:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

- ::But somehow you need to define it. Do you mean from 1996 the only clubs in the infobox should be Super League? And what about pre-1996? Only First Division clubs? I was thinking that because the infobox is more a list of data (appearances, points, etc.) than a list of clubs, maybe the criteria for inclusion should be if the data is available. If the infobox is simply saying that a player was at a club from this year to that year, that could be better said in the article text. The infobox isn't needed to communicate that. Whereas listing appearances, tries and points totals in article text doesn't really work and that's what the infobox is needed for. The data is usually available for time spent in top level clubs, but not in lower levels. So rather than us being the judges of what to include, let the sources that provide the data be the judge (in-line with the general philosophy of Wikipedia anyway). So if you want a club to have its own line in the infobox, the onus is on you to find the data to fill it up properly, otherwise just put it in the body text. (this is just an idea I'm throwing up).--Jeff79 (talk) 03:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC) - :::Actually the more I think about this idea, the more I like it. I like it because it eliminates grey areas effectively. I don't think there's any other way to make it black and white. Ask yourself, is the new infobox meant to just show a list of clubs, so only one column is occupied while others are blank? I don't think so. I think ideally that should be avoided. The columns for tries, points, etc. are there to be filled. Any thoughts?--Jeff79 (talk) 05:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC) - ::::No one's even commented on this idea. Is it really that bad?--Jeff79 (talk) 02:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Umm, I would presume that we would enter all the T/G/FG data. But I don't know what to do with unknown information. Say, pre 1950s, not all information is there. So Jeff, the point of the change in infobox is to represent the highest level of rugby league and when compared with player to player. Take Darren Lockyer and SHane Perry. Lockyer has played 280 games for Brisbane while Perry has played about 40. But Perry has also played 200 odd games for Redcliffe Dolphins. If all clubs put next to each other it may mis represent that Perry may be a better player than Lockyer in games played. Thats the main reason.
I understand your point but to me, the English Super League and its previous equivelants and the NRL and previous equivelants. There seems to be a relegation/promotion process in England, but I still think that a top grade player would change clubs if his club was relegated. Sorry that I havn't responded to your messages, its just your text, to me, seems like a pile that never ends. Sorry for the delay.  The Windler talk  10:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
That was one of the benefits for the proposed 'Other clubs' section, they don't have full App,T,G,FG,P just apps and pts. This works on aesthetic level as a multitude of players from different parts of the world and different time periods simply don't have the records available in that detail.Londo06 10:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
But I'm not worried about that aspect of the 'Other Clubs' bit. I personally believe that non first grade/representative teams are unworthy for the infobox, because they arne't as important in respect of the persons career. And such information can be conveyed in the article.  The Windler talk  10:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I'd far prefer career info without at least more than "years" and "club name" columns occupied in an "other clubs" section without such columns rather than in the "main" club section with empty Apps/T/G/FG/Pts columns. I'm also of the opinion that the infobox would be better if other clubs just went into the body text. But I think I'd be willing to bend on that if I could see how such a proposed version would look. Maybe you could whip one up in a sandbox Londo? Definitely the "main" club section should be properly filled up. If it can't be, perhaps "other clubs" will have to do as a compromise (for the sake of moving this thing along). Maybe in an "other clubs" section, "years" and clubs' "name" would be the only two columns. If that's all you can find data for, put the info in the "other clubs" section.--Jeff79 (talk) 05:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Yeah I'll definitely give that one a go once a get a bit of free time at work today.Londo06 10:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I've given it a go with Andreas Bauer. Added in the players shirt number, which is something that would be applicable for SL players and not for NRL players. Put current club as issues raised with Brett Kimmorley and the non-versed reader not being sure who he plays for. Current club, number and position all under a thin blue bar. The other departure from the existing proposition would be the other clubs section which is free-floating in that it can be placed anywhere in the infobox and also can have App, T, G, FG, P added. Regardless of any decision on implementation I do think it best to link App, T, G, FG, P to allow the reader to know what these stand for.
Thanks for taking the time to present this version, but I find it a little confusing. I do see that you have put in 'current' club but I didn't see it right away as my eye was automatically drawn to club information. Why is Hull listed under club information if Bauer's current club is Doncaster? Why are the Warriors listed as other clubs when they are top level? And did this player play for three clubs in 2007 or are they just dummy dates/figures? •Florrie•leave a note• 16:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
It's all free-floating and as such the 'Other clubs' section can be shifted within the infobox. In 2007 he was with the Warriors, Mt Albert Lions and Hull KR. At the end of 2007 he moved to Doncaster.Londo06 11:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
I have recently implemented this trialled infobox on a few players articles that I have created. I have trialled it on a range of players, mostly fledgling NRL players and minor national internationals, with one exception; Sonny Bill Williams. This was my attempt to stop the possible addition of a raft of French rugby union clubs appearing on the infobox. The coding has been taken from the basic template that I believe is to be our way forwards, with a few minor tweaks and can be found at User:Londo06/Sandbox35. Interested on the feedback on this dry run.Londo06 17:40, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Here are the players that I have added the variation on a theme infobox; Sonny Bill Williams, Phillip Leuluai, Adrian Lam, Adel Fellous, Andreas Bauer (rugby league), Danny Houghton, Jeff Robson, Dylan Skee, Mark Taufua, Tom Butterfield, Frédéric Vaccari, Ben Barba and Junior Tia-Kilifi. The only major high-profile case would be SBW, and that was for reasons stated above. The rest are relative juniors, so not to offend people with removal of information from an existing template. I have not yet linked apps, tries, goals, drop goals or points and have yet to set the coding in place for British players and the dominant system in the UK coming first. I have tried to work out a few details Adrian Lam with his representative coaching section, but I'd be happy to hear any thoughts on this variant and also any movement forwards gained elsewhere.Londo06 13:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess I was hopin it'd look better than that. I'm not a fan, sorry. It'll make people wonder why it's complete in some parts but not in others. If the data's unavailable it's better off in the body text I reckon.--Jeff79 (talk) 13:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The required level of information isn't available for a great many players in the Northern Hemisphere including current SL players. The Other clubs section is free floating.Londo06 13:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Playing data should be kept with playing data. I noticed Lam's went playing, coaching then playing again. The playing info should be kept together, but differentiated by further re-formatting. Perhaps other clubs could be two columns wide instead of one, since all that space to the right won't be filled anyway. Is that possible?--Jeff79 (talk) 14:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, the playing data should be kept together, 'Other clubs' section moved up. Not quite sure what exactly you mean with "be two columns wide instead of one" As you say there are no stats there at the minute, so I have set it so the name can fill the full length. I have tried the old style apps and pts without true success. A,T,G,FG and P is something I considered, but went against it.Londo06 14:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I meant having it two clubs wide instead of just one. Like this:
1991-93 Featherstone • 1997-98 Brisbane Easts
2003-04 Toowoomba • 2005-07 Barrow
Kinda thing.--Jeff79 (talk) 14:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

That seems like a really good idea. Will look into the coding on it, but it could be done manually as well.Londo06 14:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Given it a go. Have returned it to the way it was, it will work when manually input. Unfortunately my skills aren't too clever in this area. I can get them to appear alongside each other, but it affects the A,T,G,FG and P so I thought better of it.Londo06 15:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

More discussion

I'm still going through with the request of the bot requests for this template. Hopefully the request will be processed through soon, sorry for the delay.  The Windler talk  08:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

We do need to look into the Super League issue of squad numbers, the issue I raised about Brett Kimmorley and the current club issue. There is also the issue of Britain using feet and inches, along with stones and pounds as the dominant measurement system, with kilograms and metres in brackets. Oh just thought I'd inform that I made a slight change to the infobox code changing the team name width from 13 to 15 to allow for St George Illawarra to fit. CorleoneSerpicoMontana (talk) 10:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Another issue that has arisen is that end years are being put in place to when the statistics available are accurate for. This seems to be for rep football. Basically what the issue is that it appears that players have called time on their rep careers when what someone actually means is the information is correct up to that year. I don't have a solution apart from recommend leaving it open. For instance Willie Mason is more than likely to appear at the World Cup for the country that he learnt his football in, but according to the infobox he retired in 2007. I understand that is when the stats are accurate to, but to the casual reader it looks like he may well plump for Tonga or even the Kiwis. Craig Fitzgibbon is another example, while he may well have a swansong in London, it would be crystal-balling to suggest that his rep career is now over.Londo06 12:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

On a side note, and using Willie Mason as an example. He has "2003-" in his New South Wales part. The only time I could consider a representative player to be incumbent is during a series. Once a series is over, I don't think, whether they have retired, going to be dropped or continue playing that they are still playing for that representative team. I think only teams that they are certain to play for (which for rep teams no-one is) should state that they are incumbent.
Also people are entering "{{0}}" in the "yearXend" parameter. Please don't do this because it may break the template. I will change the "since YEAR" to just "YEAR-" soon. It needs to be entered with the word "present", so please change this and I will fix the template.  The Windler talk  08:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
OK, I have changed the template, and will proceed with altering the current uses of the template.  The Windler talk  09:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Cheers, otherwise people think that players have retired from rep football. We would be truly on our own if we go down the route of putting the end year when they haven't verbally said they are giving it up.Londo06 10:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorry I read it that you had taken care of the rep stuff. I understand the rep point of view, but we are going it alone here in terms of setting a standard by closing the years. I does appear to me and likely to editors and readers from outside the community that they have retired from the international or inter-state game.Londo06 10:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Some more thoughts:

  • Asterisks next to numbers for international caps explaining whether the figure is for ALL matches, including tour matches against local teams, or full internationals only, i.e. tests and World Cup matches (which are apparently no longer differentiated between). If different sources are available they may provide different numbers depending on which way they go. In these cases we need to decide which way we're gonna go. Personally, I think the figure should be for full international matches only, i.e. any game played against another national side, whether in a world cup, tri-nations, ashes, european championship, or whatever.
  • If a player is retired, the "Current club" field should not be occupied at all. Not by "deceased" or "retired" or anything. A person will be able to see clearly from the years in the infobox (and the very first sentence of the article) whether a player is retired or deceased without an unnecessary extra line in the infobox spelling it out for them. Actually, I'm not sure the Current club field is necessary at all, even for present players, for the same reasons.

--Jeff79 (talk) 17:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

In relation to international games that would certainly be something important for years gone past with proper tours. I think that it would best to get a verifiable figure on all. For the current club issue, that would be something for me that adds to the infobox, it works as a standard point of reference.Londo06 12:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

In the coaching section of the prototype infobox under 'club career' subsection we have a 'premierships' column. That's fine for Australia, but in Britan, historically, the premiership has been secondary in importance to the championship. Perhaps we (Australian editors) should just make a compromise and use that word. Australian readers won't have any confusion about what the indended meaning of "championship" is because we just have the one competition (I certainly don't think readers would be concerened with mid-week or pre-season comps and nor should we). Another (shorter) alternative may be "titles", however this is quite non-specific, and in England they have a few different titles up for grabs each season. I think the synonymous championships/premierships are the titles intended to appear here. But could a different heading be devised for the 'representative career' sub-section? I'm not sure what alternative to use. Perhaps "titles" as it's general enough to cover Ashes series, World Cups, Tri-nations, etc. Or separate columns for each? Soemthing to think about.--Jeff79 (talk) 05:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I support the original W/D/L/W% layout, as it not only addresses all the issues listed above but also gives a better statistical analysis of the coach's career. I just did a bit of work modifying the representative coaching section to work for Phil Gould's page - tell me what you think and whether this should also be the standard for the club coaching section. Note that I've coded the W% column so that it can automatically calculate the number based on wins and games. MDM (talk) 07:02, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Yep, that solves the representative section. Looks good. But I'm still concerned about the use of the word 'Premierships'. Some coaches have coached clubs in both Europe and Australasia and I think 'Championship' would be a better cover-all term. Or do you mean just use the same layout for coaching and rep and do away with the premierships/championships column?--Jeff79 (talk) 07:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Premierships in England was a few years back the second tier of our leagues, below Super League it was The Northern Ford Premiership. I had thought of it a while back but have not been able to come up with another word, term or phrase that fits. As an Englishman I have no great objections at this point as I would want to move the infobox closer to being put into action.Londo06 09:46, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Thats fine, I don't really like the W/D/L system. Its allright for rep games because there are few games. But really draws and losses are pointless because you can just minus them from the wins. I like W%. And "Championships" should probably be changed if it interferes with the English system.

Two points, why is in the coaching section it have "Pld" for the number of Games column. They hardly played the games. And I personally now, prefer in the playing career part, it to have "Pld" instead of "Apps". Any thoughts.  The Windler talk  09:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll change "Apps" to "Pld" in playing section. That heading is just a remnant that has survived from the Football infobox when we first made it a few years back. MDM (talk) 11:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
For premiership tables, "G W L" is used right? 'G' being for games. I think that works just fine. All one letter each. Good for cinsistency throughout wikipedia and may save some precious space too.--Jeff79 (talk) 09:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Agree G for Games rather than "Pld" for coaches (unless it is likely to be confused with G for Goal?) Is G/W/% enough for coaches? •Florrie•leave a note• 10:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
The only reason I kept "Pld" was because "G" meant "goals" in the table above it. I remember Londo making a point about linking headers a month or so ago - that's something I'll do now. MDM (talk) 11:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Yep. I support "Pld." for playing, but agree with the point made above about coaches not playing. G (games) or M (matches) should be ok as it's a different section of the infobox. Total matches is also the first column of the playing section above so I don't think people would get confused about the meaning. --Jeff79 (talk) 11:18, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

A new point: I would like to move the "Position" parameter below the Playing career heading like here comapared to the current version.  The Windler talk  09:51, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The reasoning is that a players position dosen't really come under the Personal details bit.  The Windler talk  10:03, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
I support that.--Jeff79 (talk) 09:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
I had attempted to do that, shown here with Dave Halley. I had attempted to delineate personal and professional areas with a thin line, and also at the same time, fix a Super League issue which is squad numbers.Londo06 10:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Yep, I like that. You could even put height/weight there if you wanted to ensure there was no confusion over playing height/weight as opposed to retired height/weight! •Florrie•leave a note• 10:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Integrated most up to date prototype with the delineation. Danny Houghton, Adrian Lam and Nathan Brown are examples of the current prototype with the delineated line. At this point I haven't added the height or weight into that area. I think it works on both an aesthetic level and a design level.Londo06 12:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
I actually prefer Windler's version. The "Club information" section title is there anyway, might as well use it. It removes the need for the extra dividing line. As already mentioned height and weight could be moved down under it too.--Jeff79 (talk) 12:58, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Merged the MDM and Londo version so that it works for SL players.Londo06 15:10, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
The three players listed above, had at the time of posting a delineated line, but now have the merged MDM/Londo version as it stands at this point.Londo06 15:33, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

(New talk page section)

Perhaps instead of a "currentclub" field, the infobox could somehow automatically detect what the current club actually is. I'm guessing this can be done and so I'll have a go and try to find a way to make this possible. The same goes with the parameter "new". I think the same outcome could be possible without it. MDM (talk) 15:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I reckon it can be done, although I am afraid I don't know how it would be setup. On the current club bit it seems to be a desireable line on my part. The reasons for this in terms of SL players are that squad numbers to go there and it keeps it all together there. I have also found that a great many sports have the current club on the infobox. This would be beneficial in my opinion for both casual readers and also those who parooz wikipedia regularly.Londo06 15:37, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
It certainly can be done and it would require the Wiki program searching for the "clubXend" being labelled as "present". The problem with this is that not all pages using the old infobox have "present"; some are actually left blank which I think would prevent it from working. MDM (talk) 15:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
On the issue of height and weight outside the personal information line I would not be in favour of it. To me it does not look good and also seems to go against the likes of rugby, cricket, football, etc which seem to see that as personal info as opposed to professional details.Londo06 15:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm either for either all the information appearing in the "personal information" section, or as it currently stands. This includes height and weight, current club and club number. The argument for having it the way it stands is that height and weight won't necessarily represent that individual's situation in 50 years or so, whereas if it was to go under "playing information", that would stand to be technically correct forever. Right now it isn't that urgent though - a decision on this won't affect the way the bot rollout given we're just moving things up and down. MDM (talk) 15:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
I would say that in my opinion a current player is best shown in the format shown with Danny Houghton. I do believe that that band should only be filled by a few features, pos, team and no (where relevant). This worked for the old infobox and seems fairly standard elsewhere. I get the idea behind playing weight, but for ex players it would be cited where appropriate.Londo06 16:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
The citation ideas out the window, the infobox really doesn't like that one being inserted.Londo06 16:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't support the "Current club" bit being over two lines, as here. I would prefer it not there at all, but if it needs to be there, then it should at least be two lines.  The Windler talk  22:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Everytime I see articles like Adrian Lam's I can't help thinking how much better it would be if the other clubs section just wasn't there. I also really feel that there is absolutely no need whatsoever for a "current club" field in the infobox. A player's current club will be mentioned in the first or second sentence of the article as well as already being clearly shown in the club section of the infobox. One more gripe I have is the word "details". There's no need for it either. The sections already say club and rep "information". Therefore, what appears below those sections will be that: information. I don't know why this extra word, "details" is put there too. My vote for the best section headings would be:

  • Personal information
  • Playing career
    • Club
    • Representative
  • Coaching career
    • Club
    • Representative

Apart from these things it's starting to look really good though.--Jeff79 (talk) 22:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Well that's an opinion. The other clubs section is filled to illustrate it being there. I'd be happy to move Brisbane Wests into the club details. I am wholly in favour of the club where a person currently is line. Agreed on the fact that we are moving ever closer to a wide scale implementation.Londo06 00:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
As it stands I would be happy for the version of the Infobox rugby league biography to be widely dispersed. I'd imagine they may be a few cosmetic issues, but I believe we are on the ways to getting it put out there.Londo06 01:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
While I appreciate the efforts to find consensus on this infobox, I feel that we have moved from attempting to streamline the infobox (so that it contains basic and essential information), to containing just about everything we had before plus some.
  • Some of the samples provided confuse me - Adrian Lam's infobox - is he a half-back or an assistant coach? Or is he a playing assistant coach? Why is an assistant coach's position even mentioned? It's like listing every second-grade team a player played for. Not notable. Representative coaching, fine, but nothing other than head coach, surely, is really notable.
  • I still don't see the point of mentioning the current club twice. This is how the present infobox is set-up, so where is the improvement? On the newer versions however, it appears even more redundant and fussy, particularly on one-club players such as Karmichael Hunt.
  • The continued presence of "other clubs" to list non-first-grade clubs. I didn't understand it when we began this discussion many months ago and I've read nothing since to help my understanding of the need for this section, at least not for Australian players.
  • The infoboxes now look so cluttered I agree with MDM that the club colours have definitely got to go.
If someone can explain to me how these are basic and essential, I'd greatly appreciate it. •Florrie•leave a note• 02:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
The Lam asst role is there as I cannot get that line to disappear from a non-player without it leaving a water-mark. I can understand what you are getting at with Hunt being a one club man, most aren't and we have to create a standard I feel, not one for one-club men and another for journeymen. The other clubs can go. I am however absolutely intransigent on the issue of leagueicons.Londo06 01:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Maybe try this, on the Brett Kimmorley example here. Where the current club is put in bold. As I have said, I am against the Current club bit, but it seems other people prefer it.  The Windler talk  02:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Londo, is the main reason you'd like a "current club" field because you think that presentation wise for Super League players, it makes sense to have the "player number" field alongside the team he is playing for? MDM (talk) 02:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree 100% with everything Florrie has said above. Anything other than head coach can go in the body text. I don't think making the current club bold is necessary. It's obvious enough as it's on the last line of the list. I would actually prefer if on Lam's page Brisbane Wests went into the main club section with the rest. I've tried bouncing a few ideas around for how best to determine which clubs to include and maybe we'll just have to put up with gaps in the "Pld,T,G,Pts" fields and include all clubs (although at heart I'm all for streamlining and notability only in the infobox).--Jeff79 (talk) 06:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I like the progress we have made over the last couple of days. I like the coloured bands for the bits like the representative coaching, it looked a little odd, like it was just an after-thought in the club coaching section. Big fan of the coloured bands. I like playing information section with the three fields currently there.  CorleoneSerpicoMontana  10:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Infobox bot

Ok, the bot request is almost done. Umm, I don't have much time at the moment, and some help would be appreciated to move this quickly.

On the Template:rugby league biogrpahy page, there needs to be a parameter something like "new=yes" so that some infoboxes that haven't changed are still able to function. I tried but it didn't work.

And the bot creator, which I must thank, dosent want/seem the reason for changing the birth of date/date of death into their seperate parameters. So for now can we comment that out and just put a normal parameter under the same name of the old parameter.

I should be able to help out tonight, but other help is appreciated.  The Windler talk  21:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't entirely understand where this "new" field needs to be added and how it will work. I'm more than happy to work on it but I'm not sure what exactly is required. Does it need to be added to every single field? Will both old and new fields be in use during conversion, with a set to be removed later? MDM (talk) 13:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
The point is that there will be the two infoboxes written on the template page. And one big if statement is needed. If the template requres the new version it will use that one, otherwise it will use the old one. But I've done that now.  The Windler talk  02:04, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for that, I understand how it works now. MDM (talk) 03:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
So sorry, I've just seen this and I'm on my way to work. I'll have a look tonight, unless anyone else has time during the day? •Florrie•leave a note• 23:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
I've completed the task, a bit latter than I wished, but none the less. MDM/Sanbox3 is no longer used in the mainspace. If on the template, you add the parameter "new = yes" then it will be in the new format. Though this won't work for all parameters of the old one.  The Windler talk  02:04, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't know if anyone else has seen the variation on a theme that I have worked on, it being very similar to the current proposal but with the addition of an 'other clubs' section and a banded section that holds the club no (important for SL, not so for NRL) the current club and position. Worth a look for any that haven't yet seen it. Put it into practice for a few players such as Adrian Lam, Tom Butterfield, etc.Londo06 09:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The Sonny Bill Williams one looks really good, not sure the Karmichael Hunt one wasn't a more useful tool beforehand. Will have to get the union guys interested in your template, the scoring system would be useful for them as well.Fronsdorf (talk) 20:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Which one are we moving to, as the issues which have been discussed at length are in some way covered in the SBW version. These appear to SL or Northern Hemisphere issues but I do think they should be taken into consideration, ie squad numbers, metric/imperial , etc.  CorleoneSerpicoMontana  14:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the bot is for the earlier version.Londo06 16:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I've changed the colouring scheme on the infobox slightly to try and make an obvious distinction between the playing and coaching sections. I'm very happy with how it has turned out on the two pages I have looked at - Brad Fittler and Phil Gould (although I've found a problem we may have to address there as you will see). Can I also reiterate the point that I find leagueicons very invasive on infoboxes and totally unnecessary. We may need to have another serious discussion regarding their widespread use. MDM (talk) 12:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I like the way the headers look, although there may be too much 'information'. Could the main headers be something like "Playing career" rather than "Playing information" or maybe just leave the "information" bit off the sub-header so it is just "Club" and "Representative"? Joel mentioned something about the birth/date/age template at the top of this section. •Florrie•leave a note• 12:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Well I've changed the subsections originally including "information" to "details". As for the date issue - I did read that earlier on today and have just thought of the solution. It would indeed be to be keep the original format as one entry field (as for individuals using Template:Infobox Actor). MDM (talk) 13:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I fully understand the reason behind it, but I'm gonna agree with Florrie.Londo06 14:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
With respect to what? If you're talking about dates then I have already said I agree with Florrie and Windler (although I may not have explained my words well). MDM (talk) 14:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for changing the sub-headers, MDM, I like it! •Florrie•leave a note• 01:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

For Phil Gould I gotta say I don't like Canterbury-Bankstown going onto two lines. This adds to my feeling that the leagueicons are a bad idea. In a case like this could Canterbury alone suffice? Or are we gonna be strict about the full name even if it pushes itself onto two lines? (coz I thought we'd already decided on one line only) Or is it just my compuer that sees that?--Jeff79 (talk) 18:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah we have agreed on that area. Canterbury-Bankstown would be reduced to Canterbury to avoid it going to two lines.Londo06 20:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry about that. It seems to fit fine for me using my browser (only just) but it would certainly be possible for it to carry over two lines on other browsers.
Londo, as for leagueicons, there are a number of things that still need to be addressed in my opinion. Check out Manual of Style to see what I'm on about - "Flags should not be used on sportspeople's individual infoboxes." Apart from that, check out the section above and I realise that we've pretty much violated that entire section too by creating them. But yes, amongst others, they will also limit our ability to use full team names in the infobox. MDM (talk) 00:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm willing to drop the leagueicons, but I like them, but sometimes sacrafices need to be made. You can get rid of them all, and if you alert me that you've started, I will help. Though maybe some other users should voice their opinions first.
On names that go on double lines. I think 800x600 resolution is the smallest of all screens. But if the template is a fixed width, I don't think it matters. So if the name fits in the 800x600 version, then it should fit on all. I don't think we should take into account people who have bigger fonts in their browser.
MDM, with your infobox, you may want to check out Phil Gould and that if only the year is entered it stuffs up. The template should accomindate years by themselves, or any possible outcome.
When the conversion process is happening, there won't be any conversion in the birth, death and date parameters. That means for now, it will be in the old format, with just whatever was there.
And finally, to all those who are creating prototypes for other versions of this template. PLEASE use the parameters that are used in MDM/Sandbox3 version. This will save doing this entire process again.  The Windler talk  02:04, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
As for leagueicons, I won't remove them until a few things are cleared up with other editors, but I do appreciate your willingness to compromise.
In order to prevent team names from carrying over two lines, we will have to find the most problematic browser and test every club name/moniker combination possible. Then we should write up a standard set of rules for club naming on infobox for others to follow as a guide.
I'm trying to change the date entries so that we can use the old format (simply one field), but am having a bit of trouble since the new template seems to have dozens of interlinked "if" values that stuff up if any others are touched. I'll keep on having a go to try and get it back to what we used to have. Once I work out a way the Phil Gould issue will fix itself.
As above - we'll keep the original date parameters, rather than use the new ones. MDM (talk) 03:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Update - I've found a fix for the date fields and so those fields no longer need to be converted from the old style to the new style. There is now, however, a bit of unneeded information left in the coding. This won't affect the template in any way apart from making the file size unnecessarily larger. Preferably someone will eventually be able to work out how to remove that excess stuff successfully.
Also, could you ask the bot programmer whether he can simply remove the "repupdate" field? I don't think we particularly need two of them. All that is needed now is a conversion from "pcupdate" to "updated" (which I'm about to make). I think that's what we'll call newly combined field. Once that's all fixed up I think we're good to go... MDM (talk) 03:47, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I will.  The Windler talk  09:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
The Bot request will hopefully go into the testing stages for now. But it may take some time before the whole thing is done. But we're getting there.  The Windler talk  09:37, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

On the matter of leagueicons I support them being there 100%. I would obviously get behind the tweaking of the infobox with the addition of the lighter colour bands. I do prefer the box a few days back, but if there is a majority I would obviously push for momentum in that area.Londo06 09:41, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I like them, but am willing to give them up. MDM has done a lot for this project, and it is my understand that he absolutly loathes them (sorry if thats wrong). I think we should show him respect and take a backward step on them.
I'm not sure what you mean by the "lighter colour bands" bit.  The Windler talk  09:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Club details and Representative details in a lighter hue.Londo06 10:06, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
I liked the use of them on season pages when we first introduced them two or so years ago in a highly localised manner (on those pages only, as a response to the crackdown on the use of logos), but in hindsight they are not only breaching Wikipedia policy, but are becoming a bit of an eyesore since they've started to appear on every rugby league page.
I most appreciate your support SpecialWindler, but I haven't done as near as much as you and several other editors. Of course, if everyone else is fully behind any given issue, I'll take a step back. But in this case I just feel very strongly not having colours and there is at least one other editor that shares my opinions to the same extent. But amongst other things, the use of colours will also limit our aim of keeping team names to just one line on the infoboxes. MDM (talk) 11:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Seems like alot of progress has been made today. Just a few things to iron out, one being they still seem to have the wrong measurements for UK based players.  CorleoneSerpicoMontana  17:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Can something be done about peoples' height being expressed in metres rather than centimetres. It's pretty absurd.--Jeff79 (talk) 06:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

How is it absurd? All human heights in Australia are recorded in centimetres - medical, defence, police, sport - all centimetres. •Florrie•leave a note• 05:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, of course they are. They are in most other parts of the world too. But NOWHERE is human height recorded in metres (i.e. 1.95m) like on Willie Mason. I'm sayin it should read 195cm.--Jeff79 (talk) 05:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Apologies, must've misread your post! I thought you wanted it expressed in metres rather than centimentres. I think it comes down to, possibly, only one option being able to be used in the template and, as with other infobox issues, there's a difference between northern and southern hemisphere usage. Currently the northern hemisphere option is displayed, metres over centimentres. Maybe we should go with northern and southern versions of the infobox and be done with it. •Florrie•leave a note• 06:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh, no worries. Actually wasn't worded very clearly now that I look at it. I dunno about Northern Hemisphere preferences, but I've lived in both Japan and Korea and in those countries metres are definitely not used. I think it's just an error that needs to be fixed. I'm sure no one will complain.--Jeff79 (talk) 17:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
In the UK we almost exclusively leave feet and inches for height, along with stones and pounds for weight. However on the continent it would be metres and kilograms.Londo06 09:02, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Yet you have been 'changing over' to metric since 1965 and anyone under 40 would have learnt metric at school. Why the adherance to imperial in Wikipedia? I had a quick look through Super League websites and these [1],[2],[3],[4],[5] use metric exclusively in player profiles, while these [6],[7],[8],[9] use a mixture (usually height in imperial, weight in metric), Harlequins display both, and Castleford and Warrington don't seem too fussed about height or weight in any form. Maybe Wikipedia should give UKMA a hand and only display metric! :) •Florrie•leave a note• 13:20, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
LOL. The overiding system is feet and inches, both for recorded details and in everyday conversation in the UK, much as cm and kg seems to be the dominant system down under.Londo06 14:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
In relations to those sites I have often wondered why they appear to be going down that route. I have no issue with our league infobox displaying feet and inches in brackets at this point as I do not understand the coding enough to fix it in the current format for the infobox.Londo06 14:47, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. Both emperial and metric should appear. I just want it in centimetres, not metres. Expressing Willie Mason's height as 1.95m is like expressing his weight as 0.114 tonnes.--Jeff79 (talk) 18:47, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Final Infobox Votes

Well, I think we should finally get this over and done with. If you would like to add a new poll, please do so. Comments and neutrals are not required but are encouraged if there is opposition. If a new poll is not opened, it will be assumed that everyone is happy with the infobox as is.

  • Each new poll that someone creates will remain open for sevens days.
  • New polls will be ignored if created after this Sunday, 24 August 2008.
  • This section will therefore be open for a maximum of two weeks.
  • If a 2/3 majority is achieved, the vote is final for a period of 12 months when the issue will be allowed to be reconsidered.
MDM (talk) 09:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Vote against the Use of Colours

I propose that colours be banned from all infoboxes based on a number of grounds. Firstly, they look messy. Secondly, the very creation of them goes against Wikipedia guidelines. Thirdly, flags and the like are discouraged from infoboxes anyway. If you support or oppose this measure against the use of colours in infoboxes, please cast your vote below.

  • Support MDM (talk) 09:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support --Jeff79 (talk) 10:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I've always been able to see both sides when it comes to the colours. Something that does annoy me in particular though is the inclusion of lower-level teams' colours, which are sometimes just .svgs/.pngs borrowed from top-level teams. The larger the array of teams and colours, the more their benefit is diluted. Another contentious infobox issue is that of which club football to include and which to leave in the body text. I've avoided bringing it up so far as to not delay the rollout of the infobox any longer. If it's decided that the colours stay, then those who advocate inclusion rather than exclusion when it comes to lower-level club football will need to become more flexible. If colours are retained, no club listed in the infobox should be without them. I'm sure all can agree that gaps in the colours looks worse than no colours at all. And that isn't to say we should go about creating more icons for the minor teams. There is enough duplication of colours between clubs already without adding anymore. Take a look at Trent Barrett's infobox and consider how it would look if he moved to St. Helens next season. If that isn't bad enough, imagine if he'd also played for Redcliffe Dolphins and represented England . Or a 1980s player who went from Souths Brisbane to Western Suburbs to Widnes while also representing The Kiwis . You get the picture. Having no colours at all is surely the lesser of two evils. Cases like these will be less likely the more selective we are with which club football we include, but the more clubs that are listed, the more likely situations like the above will become. So, while I think it's best to forget colours, if they are retained there might need to be a tradeoff: A longer list of clubs with no colours, or a shorter list of clubs with colours. Just something to think about before a final decision is made.--Jeff79 (talk) 10:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support •Florrie•leave a note• 11:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support-Sticks66 14:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Reject  CorleoneSerpicoMontana  20:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Neutral I sorta like them but see where you're coming from. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Reject - If used sparingly and sensibly I have no problem with colours in infoboxes. Gialloneri (talk) 07:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Colours are not really needed in the infobox but can be placed in the article. Bidgee (talk) 07:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Neutral I don't mind either way. I don't mind if they go, but if they stay, I won't mind either. I'm being honest in saying I prefer them but I can let it go. If they are in, them I am against the use of country flags. If in a tight one, I would tend to Weak Reject. The Windler talk  08:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Reject - I support the use of colours, how good does the a league info box look? colours are just as much apart of a team's identity as the name. A newbie to rugby league searches the nrl on google, and goes to the wiki page, they scroll to the bottom of the page, and they want to find out more about the team they saw the other day, but they dont know what its name is, they then see the blue and white next to the bulldogs in the info box, and whammy, they have found the team they are looking for. What about overseas viewers who know the club by the colours but not the name? or what about people who are weaker readers, they know the colours, and they see the colours in the info box, and they can choose the link then. --Thirdayparadise (talk) 10:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Reject - I think the infoboxes are fine as they are. I think colour makes articles look better and flags are used fine for the national team userboxes. I don't think colour is messy. Poiuytre (talk) 13:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

MDM, where in the Wikipedia guidlines, does it say that images/colours shouldn't be used.  The Windler talk  10:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Go here. I refer to the sentence, "Flags should not be used on sportspeople's individual infoboxes." If you look at the section above, it is stated, "The practice of inventing a new flag to fill a perceived need for one is not simply deprecated but expressly forbidden by policy, as it constitutes original research." That alone is good enough for me to outlaw the use of colours in infoboxes. MDM (talk) 13:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
If it is clearly against policy then it seems pointless to even discuss the issue, regardless of personal preferences. •Florrie•leave a note• 23:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
There are a couple of editors who certainly won't like it if I pull this one down. But I guess if there is an issue concerning a violation of Wikipedia protocol then we'd might as well address it now rather than have a few administrators come across it in a few months and deleting all the work of a number of people who posted the colours. What does everyone reckon? MDM (talk) 07:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I understand the flags angle having read the link, but I don't agree that the leagueicons are a violation.Londo06 08:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
What about the following:
"The practice of inventing a new flag to fill a perceived need for one is not simply deprecated but expressly forbidden by policy, as it constitutes original research; additionally it will most often advance a personal viewpoint which may have political or other contentious undertones, and it constitutes the neologistic invention of something that is unlikely to be recognizable or meaningful to anyone else. One example of such an invention is a bogus "North American flag"."
To me if we redesigned a flag, I would get behind the motion 100%, however we are merely using the colour of the kit, which enhances the infobox in my view.Londo06 06:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
What are your thoughts on that? MDM (talk) 09:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Use of centimetres to express height rather than metres

I had never seen human height expressed in metres in my life until I saw Willie Mason's infobox. My Queensland driver's licence has centimetres. In Japan and Korea centimetres are also exclusively used. They're also used on the Super League and NRL official websites.

I'm surprised by how many people are opposed. I'd just like to make it clear that this poll is purely for the metric side of the height/weight. This is not a poll on the exclusion of the imperial height/weight, which will of course appear alongside the metric. This is purely centimetres vs metres (i.e. 195cm vs 1.95m), nothing more.--Jeff79 (talk) 06:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Use of the word "Championships" rather than "Premierships" in the coaching section

"Championship" is a better cover-all term than premiership, as in the UK the two have had different meanings for a large portion of the sport's recent history. In Chris Anderson's case (and I'm sure there are other coaches who would have similar issues), he coached Halifax to the Championship but not to the Premiership during his time with the club. He later coached Melbourne to the NRL premiership. Australia's premiership (which I'm assuming usage of the heading "Premierships" is based on) is synonymous with England's Championship. If "Championships" is used there will be no confusion. Even for people unfamiliar with rugby league, "Championship" is a better cover-all term for the meaning intended by the infobox.

This is another one where the degree of opposition is somewhat mind-boggling. I trust that people who aren't very familiar with the subject clicked on the links provided for Championship and Premiership above and had a read before voting. What Australians have always called the 'premiership' has always been known as the 'championship' in England. The English 'premiership' is something else entirely. So which do we choose for the infobox (which will inevitably appear on coaches who've worked in both countries)?. The (almost certainly non-existent) confusion that may be caused to an Australian reader who finds the one column for "Championships" on an NRL coach's article will obviously be less than the genuine confusion caused to an English reader who finds an RFL coach with the one column for "Premierships".--Jeff79 (talk) 09:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support--Jeff79 (talk) 10:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I was more for W/D/L/W% in the coaching section, but I seem to have met considerable opposition. So I'll stick with the current format. The problem here though is that "championship" has never been used to describe a title in Australia. Therefore I suggest "Titles" instead. MDM (talk) 10:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't see any problem with W/D/L/W% and would be willing to argue for that. Was it considered too detailed? "Titles" would be even more problematic due the the multitude of competitions available to British clubs over the years. I'd really be surprised if any Australian readers would be confused with what the intended meaning of "Championships" is.--Jeff79 (talk) 10:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't recall any discussion on the W/S/L/W%. But there has been so much... Happy with either format if you are looking to revert it. •Florrie•leave a note• 11:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support I'd prefer Premierships but I can live with Championships if that is considered more flexible. •Florrie•leave a note• 11:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support I'd prefer Premierships but get where you're coming from.-Sticks66 14:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Neutral  CorleoneSerpicoMontana  20:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Neutral/not fussed I'd prefer Premierships but get where you're coming from too. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Gialloneri (talk) 07:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Neutral I don't really mind, I would say I must prefer premierships but like Florrie, I can live with it.  The Windler talk  09:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  • OpposeLondo06 22:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
So if the infobox says "Premierships", what number shall we put in John Monie's beside Wigan, who he coached to the Rugby League Premiership once, but to the Rugby League Championship four times?--Jeff79 (talk) 16:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
You telling us that makes it appear as though you haven't read any of the above discussion before voting. Please have a read.--Jeff79 (talk) 15:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Removal of 'current club' field

I think whether a player is retired or still playing (and which club they're playing at) is made perfectly clear in articles without having a 'current club' field. See Reg Gasnier, whose "Club" is "retired". And if a player is deceased will it say "deceased"? Not good in my opinion. I think it's just overkill.

  • Support--Jeff79 (talk) 10:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support MDM (talk) 10:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support •Florrie•leave a note• 11:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support-Sticks66 14:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Reject  CorleoneSerpicoMontana  20:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Not fussed either way. I am easy. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Gialloneri (talk) 07:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support It really serves no purpose, in any way, unless the reader is unable to see the bottom team on the list of teams.  The Windler talk  09:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - This is one of the more puzzling ones; it seems a standard throughout to have the current club. With SL players we will have a number which will have no context in the infobox.Londo06 22:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I can see where you're coming from with the club numbers (which, by the way, should never be used for Australian clubs). My biggest problem is with retired and deceased players. If the "Current Club" field were limited to current players, I could possibly bend on this issue.--Jeff79 (talk) 06:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Totally agree, it doesn't look the greatest when you have current club: retired.Londo06 06:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Removal of the word "details"

The sub-headings "Club details" and "Representative details" appear under headings "Playing information" and "Coaching information". In this context 'details' and 'information' mean exactly the same thing. In the name of streamlining one of them should go. I think 'details' should, as "Playing information" and "Coaching information" are in line with the first heading, "Personal information".

  • Support --Jeff79 (talk) 11:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support "Playing information" with sub-headers "Club" and "Representative". •Florrie•leave a note• 12:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support In fact, I've changed the infobox according to what I think you are requesting. Jeff, let me know if this is what you intended it to look like. MDM (talk) 13:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support -Sticks66 14:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Reject  CorleoneSerpicoMontana  20:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Gialloneri (talk) 07:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Neutral Don't really mind.  The Windler talk  09:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  • NeutralLondo06 22:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Alexsanderson83 07:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Removal of "Youth Club" from infobox

State of Origin is determined on the first senior club played for after reaching the age of 16. This can be mentioned in the text, if it is known, and expanded on if necessary (ie, actual location) rather than a meaningless list of two or three junior or school-based clubs. (The last count on this [10] was 3 for removal, 2 for retention, 1 neutral)

Coaching Information section to include head coach positions only

Just as someone's article shouldn't be placed into a category of coaches unless he is appointed head coach of a top-level team, coaching career data shouldn't be included in the infobox unless it is for a head coach position at a top-level team. The same rules for inclusion of playing data should apply. This means coaching of junior representative teams such as Australian Schoolboys and non-top-level teams such as those in the Queensland Cup should be in the body text only. For example, Kevin Walters' coaching data for Catalans Dragons can be included, but his time at the Ipswich Jets can remain in the body text. Assistant coach, strength & conditioning coach, defensive coach, etc. information can also stay in the body text.

Moving height and weight to the "playing area"

I'm not really fond of height and weight for retired players, and then Florrie suggested it go under the player information. I would like this to hhappen.

  • Support It would then make it refer to that the height and weight is playing career.  The Windler talk  09:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Logically speaking, this makes the most sense. The only drawback on this though is that the "club" subsection line is separated from "playing information", making the infobox not look as good. That said, this proposed format is technically the most correct. MDM (talk) 09:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
We can make it work somehow. Its already apart if the "position" parameter is in between anyway.  The Windler talk  09:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support It's the neatest way. Although it could be argued that height and weight are indeed 'personal information' and should be placed under that heading, a moment's thought should make people realize why it's under 'playing information'.--Jeff79 (talk) 10:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support I'm happy with either placement in the infobox but if this suggestion makes retaining the information for retired players more acceptable to other members, I'll go for it. •Florrie•leave a note• 10:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support This is only for retired players though.Londo06 22:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
    • I'd be happy if this were for retired players only too. With current players it's not an issue is it? Although if it were the same across the board that would also be fine.--Jeff79 (talk) 02:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Come on the Mothers (talk) 05:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support just checking, as per the line this is only for retired players. Alexsanderson83 07:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Not having the "updated" parameter for retired RL persons

Currently, the infobox forces the "updated" parameter to appear, even for deceased persons. I don't see the parameter for any purpose beyond current players. I propose that this parameter becomes option for retired players/coaches.  The Windler talk  09:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Support  The Windler talk  09:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Neutral I know my limitations. I don't have enough knowledge of the nuts and bolts of infoboxes so I'm staying out of this one.--Jeff79 (talk) 10:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - which reminds me of something else. •Florrie•leave a note• 10:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support I've made both this field and the source field optional. If anyone has a problem with the latter, open up a new section below. MDM (talk) 10:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
(Comment: Great, thanks!) •Florrie•leave a note• 11:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Coaching section presentation

There are two options here. We can either use the existing "Premierships" field or the old "W/D/L/W%" ones that you find in the representative coaching section. One benefit of using the latter are the fact that numbers will line up all the way down the infobox, (see currently Phil Gould on why it could look better) however some may see this added information as slightly irrelevant. Also it'll fix the issue of whether to call the old column "premierships" or "championships". Now that I think of it, the majority of these "premiershps" fields will probably be "0" anyway. I can see the benefits of using the current format, but I just prefer an infobox where all the numbers line up. So do you all prefer changing it back to "W/D/L/W%" or leaving the columns as is? I thought this had been talked about extensively in the old archived discussions but there seems to be a few here who didn't get a say then, so that's why I've opened it up again. One other issue i've just noticed is that the "premiership" text takes up more space than it should, forcing the "Pld/T/G/FG/P" columns above it to spread out more than they should. This will restrict what can be written in the "club" columns.

  • Support MDM (talk) 03:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support I support lining up - so I would be supporting G/W/D/L/% and I'm more than happy to see premierships/championships listed in the text. I fixed Tim Sheens' infobox this morning and thought then it looked a little off whack with the different columns. •Florrie•leave a note• 03:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose the W/D/L System but Support removel of premiership for spacing issues. May I suggest "Titles", it is a little ambigious but I don't like the W/L/D System. But if necessary then I will be nuetral on the subject.  The Windler talk  06:50, 24 August 2008 (UTC) Change to Support for asthetics reasons. I cant see any other real posibility.  The Windler talk  10:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support removes the possibility of Australasian bias in the infobox which is something that really concerns me. It is an international sport whether aussie league fans are aware of it or not, and while the 'premiership' has always been the be all and end all down under, that just isn't the case in Britain where there've always been a number of titles. I see the benefit of the infobox showing at a glance the degree of success a coach has had by listing premierships, but we don't do it for players and they're the ones on the field. If it's ok to have to find out how many titles a player won elsewhere in the article, then it's ok for coaches too. And if having Pld/T/G/FG/P for players is not excessivley detailed, then having G/W/D/% for coaches isn't either. Lining up is also a major pro in my opinion.--Jeff79 (talk) 10:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Bot underway

The bot is still in test mode, but has started transfeered some articles.

Some of the articles transferred:

Now that thats happened, I think we need to make the parameters that haven't been entered optional, for now.  The Windler talk  21:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I can do it later today, but have stuff to do now.  The Windler talk  21:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
P.S. Any suggestions or complaints about the conversion could go at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/MelonBot 10, where the bot is currently undergoing approval. – Quadell (talk) 21:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
reading above there seems to be a number of fields that will come later. The real issue that I can see at this point is the dash as at the minute it looks like we have a number of players who can't get a gig.Londo06 09:06, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Just had to manually add back in a line with the squad number for the Leeds Rhinos back-rower Simon Worrall. I think I've alerted the bot operator as this would obviously be a major flaw in the implementation.Londo06 22:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks like there is alot of manual work now to do with the infobox, for example the addition of squad numbers for European Super League players.Londo06 07:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Must do

Unfortenutly, the infobox bot was unable to put players currently players automatically into the infobox. Per consensus in the WP:RL we present the data as "YEAR-" not "YEAR-CURRENTYEAR" or "YEAR-present" or "since YEAR".

To make this possible, put the word "present" in the "yearXend" parameter, and it will set it up for you correctly. Thanks  The Windler talk  08:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Position in infobox

Check out {{Rlp}}.

 The Windler talk  14:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Nice work. I'll use it. MDM (talk) 05:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Infobox finished

Thanks to Happy-melon, the infobox bot has changed. Now we have the task of adding all the stats.

If I could make a request:

When you add the tries, goals, field goals, of each team for a player (thus finishing the empty parameters on the infobox), can you REMOVE the nrl=yes.

Thus taking it out of the category Category:Infobox rugby league biography templates needing updating.

The template will no longer revert to the old one without the new=yes. Meaning that there are no remnents of the old infobox.

And finally, please thank Happy-melon on his/her talk page. He/She did do a lot of work for this, and it would be wrong for us to neglect his/her effort.

 The Windler talk  22:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, some sources that may help you find info on the T/G/FG on a player (FOR THE NRL) Any from the SL would be appreciated.
http://www.nrl.com/
http://www.nrlstats.com/
http://rugbyleagueproject.com/
 The Windler talk  22:53, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
A warning on these stats pages. I find discrepencies amongst them all the time. I think when choosing which figures to use, maybe we should use the biggest? It's more likey that data's been left out that accidentally added. I dunno. But for rep figures I'm not sure if we should choose the larger figure, as it may include tour matches that aren't full internationals. Just something to be wary of, I've seen alot of cases where those sites' figures don't match eachother, or one won't have a player at all and others will, etc.--Jeff79 (talk) 04:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
http://www.yesterdayshero.com.au/Index.aspx
http://www.stateoforigin.com.au/soogame/originteamhistory.aspx
http://stats.rleague.com/rl/scorers/scorers_idx.html
Jeff, I'm using the official Sportsdata one for club details, see this for example. It seems that players who played in 2002 are represented by HTML numbers 1-410 (ranked by club, then alphabetically), with older players listed alphabetically from number 500 onwards. For newer (current) players, you will need to go through the database listed here. This is the official source of the NRL and so I can't see why we shouldn't use it.
I did come here though to say that the category of "infoboxes needing updating" is exactly the opposite of what we want and I can't seem to fix it. If anyone knows how to make it work properly, that would be excellent. MDM (talk) 04:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Actually, don't worry about fixing that category for now - leave it as is. Whenever someone removes the "new" field from the infobox the template will appear in that category. I'll go through it once a day or so and make sure every infobox has a "source" listed under it. MDM (talk) 04:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh nice. I didn't know about that site. How did you hear about it?--Jeff79 (talk) 04:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
If you go to http://www.nrlstats.com (the old statistics site) you will see a link saying "detailed stats and reports". Come to think of it, all you need to do is go to that player database link I gave above and on the left hand panel click the button at the bottom (it is partially obscured on my screen so I just noticed it then). MDM (talk) 04:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip on the stats location, M. I have found an error in one player's stats so far (Rhys Hanbury), so I guess these aren't infallible either. One cross check I make (for 2008 figures only) is with the Fox Sports Fantasy Team stats - not really something you can reference, but it's a good check. You know they are right, otherwise there would be 60,000 participants screaming for a re-count. Me included. •Florrie•leave a note• 07:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone have a good source for internationals, for Australians in particular.  The Windler talk  07:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
I usually use books for Internationals but Whiticker doesn't give a breakdown of World Cup games. The Rugby League Project gives World Cup as well as "Tests" but you would already know that. •Florrie•leave a note• 07:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

MDM, if you would like me to make the category only show articles WITHOUT "new=yes" AND WITHOUT "source=x" then I can. That will save you having to possibly go through an article twice. And thanks for doing what you are doing.  The Windler talk  07:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Prime Minister's XIII - unless someone has an easy to access source for games played, points scored etc over the years, I'm removing mention from the infobox. It can go in the article. •Florrie•leave a note• 07:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Another thing: whatever happens with the 'current club' field with the infobox, can we all just use common sense and keep "retired" and "deceased" OUT of it? Thank you.--Jeff79 (talk) 08:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Relatives

I thought I remembered there being a field under personal information for notable relatives in the old infobox. I don't feel strongly about it, but I didn't think it was a bad idea. Does anyone else reckon it should be retained?--Jeff79 (talk) 09:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I think its something that can be included in the body of the article.  The Windler talk  09:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
It's something I always thought was worthy, now that we've cut things like schools it wouldn't seem to much to have relatives back there.Londo06 06:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I think the thinning out of the personal information section lends weight to its re-inclusion. I know that for me personally, when the notable relatives were listed in the infobox I discovered a lot of related footy people that I might never have found otherwise. It was informative to me and might well be for others.--Jeff79 (talk) 07:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm loosely in favour of them at this point.  CorleoneSerpicoMontana  07:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Not really bothered either way. Fronsdorf (talk) 09:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Problems with new infobox

The new infobox has a problem on Jack Gibson (rugby league) as its taken over half the screen, on my settings anyway. Not sure how to fix it, so can someone have a look. Thx Boylo (talk) 02:52, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

It appears you need to put in a number of fields in order to make them not appear in their raw format on the page. See this edit as an example.
One other thing that needs to be taken care of is the new break between the bottom of the infobox text and the body text. If everyone can remove it when they go through editing any player page, that would be excellent. MDM (talk) 03:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

One small issue I have is the loss of visible data when looking through a page's history. You can still check the history but you need to make sure you find the right edit page. Just makes it a little more difficult. See here and here - the playing info section of the infobox is no longer visible. I use this a bit to balance season-to-date figures by comparing end of season etc. I'll get over it by tomorrow, though. •Florrie•leave a note• 03:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Harry Bath's needs attention too.--Jeff79 (talk) 16:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Major issue with the new infobox as the weights and heights have moved for all players, not just retired players. I'm not clued up on all the coding because I've been away, otherwise I'd fix it myself. Alexsanderson83 07:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

if you look at Jack Gibson and Wayne Bennett's infoboxes, for some reason it displays their most recent club coached as the first representative side listed (despite all seeming correct in the edit window). Dunno how to fix it.--Jeff79 (talk) 08:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. MDM (talk) 08:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

For players who have died, like Dally Messenger the "countryofdeath" parameter is forced, when it shouldn't.  The Windler talk  05:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Infobox Image

Should we or shouldn't we use Image:Replace this image male.svg on infoboxes? If we do choose to use them, we'd might as well apply it as a standard on the infobox coding if a proper image isn't available. Doing this would save us a lot of time applying it to every page and would save us ever more time should we ever choose to take it off. MDM (talk) 06:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind it, but there should be an option to remove it if it isn't wanted.  The Windler talk  10:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
If it is on every article that has a infobox then it gives us a better chance of someone giving us a image to use. That's why i always add them if there isn't a photo. Boylo (talk) 12:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Can't stand them personally. Reminds me of advertising blanks. •Florrie•leave a note• 12:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Same. Makes the article look bad IMO best without it. Bidgee (talk) 12:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I like them as they make the infobox format fit properly, and they can be easily replaced if people take pictures at the games, but not me, I'm not a neek. Fronsdorf (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 13:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Loosely in favour of it at the minute.  CorleoneSerpicoMontana  07:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I think they do have a place, until replaced by an actual picture. Fronsdorf (talk) 09:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I add them as standard on any I create, although it's not something that I will go around and add to every article without one.Londo06 19:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Final Infobox Votes

Well, I think we should finally get this over and done with. If you would like to add a new poll, please do so. Comments and neutrals are not required but are encouraged if there is opposition. If a new poll is not opened, it will be assumed that everyone is happy with the infobox as is.

  • Each new poll that someone creates will remain open for sevens days.
  • New polls will be ignored if created after this Sunday, 24 August 2008.
  • This section will therefore be open for a maximum of two weeks.
  • If a 2/3 majority is achieved, the vote is final for a period of 12 months when the issue will be allowed to be reconsidered.
MDM (talk) 09:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Results

Poll F N A W% Result
Ban colours 5 2 9 56 Temporary
Use of "cm" rather than "m" 8 4 3 53 Temporary
Use of "championships" rather than "premierships" 3 5 3 27 Undecided
Removal of "current club" field 7 1 5 54 Temporary
Removal of the word "details" 5 2 2 56 Temporary
Removal of the "Youth Club" field 7 6 0 54 Temporary
Coaching to include only head coaching positions 8 1 2 73 Permanent
Moving "height" and "weight" to "playing information" 7 0 0 100 Permanent
Having "updated" only for current players 5 2 0 71 Permanent
Pld/W/D/L/@% system for coaching section 4 0 0 100 Permanent
AMAZED the centimetres didn't go through.--Jeff79 (talk) 10:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
We'll be having another vote in a month or so probably to finalise everything and get everything settled. But we've made progress. MDM (talk) 10:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I only voted "neutral" for some to state I didn't care what happened with it, and I think thats what most people do with Nuetral in these sort of situations. At least I wouln't count my neutral votes.  The Windler talk  10:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Just as something I just saw (even though its been on Karmichael Hunt for ages) and I'm happy to let go if necessary. Should Junior representative teams (such as Aus. Schoolboys, Junior Kiwis) be on the representative section. Just really noticed it and sorry I didn't put it in the vote earlier. But if it's necessarry to not go to a vote, I don't mind. I just personally don't like them there.  The Windler talk  10:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Don't know about anyone else, but I'm removing them from the infobox. Same with City/Country Seconds, Prime Minister's XIII and others lower representative teams that it is almost impossible to find figures for. At any rate, they aren't the highest level. •Florrie•leave a note• 12:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
So almost 2/3 of the vote isn't good enough? :( 62.5% sounds good to me! •Florrie•leave a note• 12:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC) ETA: And the vote on colours over-rides WP policy? How does that work? •Florrie•leave a note• 12:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Because of WP:IAR. If users believe that these colours improve the artice then that Wikipedia policy overides WP:MOS.  The Windler talk  21:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
In that case we may as well all pack up and go home. Pointless voting on anything at all because anyone can over-ride anything and spout WP:IAR. •Florrie•leave a note• 11:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

It looks like there has been a major error in the infobox. The vote was moving height and weight was for retired players, and it looks like it has happened across the board. As I've been away for so long I'm not clued up on the coding, otherwise I'd fix the problems myself. Alexsanderson83 07:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it was meant for all players.  The Windler talk  07:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
That's not what it said in the vote, it was quite specific with the issue of retired players. Unless there is a long talk that I wasn't around for I would recommend shifting it back to the status quo until we can work out the coding or word it better so people aren't voting for two different aims within the same vote. Alexsanderson83 07:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
The only reason for it to apply for all players is if it's too fiddly to make it for retired players only. If it's not a hassle to do the coding or whatever for the infobox to make it differentiate between the two then there's no dramas.--Jeff79 (talk) 07:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Yeah totally, like I said I thought I was voting for retired players only. If I knew the code I would shift it back myself and fix it for retired players and then for current players. Alexsanderson83 07:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
It was meant for all players but the original discussion was archived and the new 'vote' only referred to retired players as an example. That's what I thought at least. Anyway, what's the hassle with it being there for all players? Looks fine. •Florrie•leave a note• 11:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Agree totally if it is a hassle to differentiate between retired and current. I think if they're current, it's better to have height and weight under 'Personal Information' as that's generally where it's listed in other infoboxes on wikipedia. A player being retired is the only really good reason to change that.--Jeff79 (talk) 11:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I was under the impression that we were voting for retired players only as well.Londo06 18:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I get a message on a vote on my talk-page and it's already gone. How long was this vote around for because we have done away with squad numbers and moved height and weight into playing information, two bizarre moves in my opinion. From a European perspective numbers are essential and I'm not sure it will look good at all with five bits of information in the section where we used to have three at most. That's without even entertaining whether weight is a playing feature or a personal detail. Fronsdorf (talk) 13:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Just seen it on Sonny Bill Williams page and guessed it was just that he switched codes, but now seen it with current players, not what it said in the polling question.  CorleoneSerpicoMontana  07:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Just had to add the squad number back in for Matt Gidley as it wasn't on there. It looks shockingly awful to have the five bits of information in there, if I had the knowledge and the skills I would sort it out, but the height and weight should go back to where it was, especially given what has happened, is not what the proposition was.  CorleoneSerpicoMontana  07:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Will be looking to remedy this situation. What I will do is look to return it to where it was in relation to the height and weight positioning as evidenced people thought they were voting for retirees, and after fixing a few Super League players it does look pretty shoddy with five bits of information in that area. That seems to be the best point to go forwards from there with specific retiree formatting if anyone knows how to achieve that.Londo06 12:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Good call from SpecialWindler at the page, I will look to fix it within my sandbox and the implement the remedy.Londo06 14:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

5 bits of information in that field does not look great at all. We should probably return to the three that were there for SL players, and the two for NRL players. Not sure how weight and height are playing information, unless it is billed weight like wrestlers and a player like Willie Mason is actually 1.84m and 99kg. Fronsdorf (talk) 09:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. Looks are subjective. Height/weight are playing information as far as the data being correct for while the footballer was playing, not ten years after retirement or worse, death. •Florrie•leave a note• 03:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I've never really understood that argument, especially considering the stance on article leads telling the reader what the player is. Surely they would be aware that they are no longer a competitive rugby league footballer. 08:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

"Current Club" Field

I've made the "current club" field only appear for northern hemisphere players, by requiring the "clubnumber" field to be filled before "current club" appears. This is because there seems to be a consensus amongst the southern editors to remove it, whilst visa versa from you northerners. If there are any issues with this, let us all know here. MDM (talk) 05:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I edit alot of NRL articles and I feel it is a key component. I think you should bring it to a vote, else create an NRL infobox and a SL infobox.Londo06 08:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
We already had a poll, see above. MDM (talk) 10:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
With regards to the squad number being alongside, it doesn't look too good to be honest.Londo06 08:48, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Pushed number and current club back in, a merge rather than a revision.Londo06 09:00, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't like that an entire line is used to just portray one number. It seems a bit of a damper.  The Windler talk  09:32, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
I can understand where you're coming from, but to me the alternative looks exponentially worse.Londo06 09:36, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
And it was decided that the "number" field should only be used for a cap number. NRL are given numbers based on their position (such as Karmichael Hunt given 1). I don't like the current club or number field at all. No matter its importance for SL players.  The Windler talk  09:35, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Londo, the poll that we did a week ago concluded that "current club" should disappear altogether for the time being. Now here are SpecialWindler and I trying to make a nice compromise by satisfying both your wishes (to have "current club" and "club number" included for northern players) and every Australian's wishes (having neither field for current Australian players). Now as far as I am concerned, you have two choices:
(1) Accept both SpecialWindler's and my version of the two fields in the infobox
(2) Accept the poll that concluded that we remove "current club" altogether
As SpecialWindler stated, he does not like either field in any infobox. I have the same opinion as he does. But we are trying to come to some sort of compromise and I'm sure we'd both like you to do the same.
I will now revert the infobox back to what I did. The next move is up to you. MDM (talk) 10:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't see why "Current club" should be for either hemisphere. I can understand why the number may be of importance to northern players ... but I agree with MDM. The vote last week was supposed to end all this talk for the meantime. It seems to me that we're having all these conversations over and over. Sometimes, we have to let go of some things, in order to make Wikipedia a better place. But I agree with MDM, the next move is up to you.  The Windler talk  11:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The numbers are a big deal in the UK, I know from living in various parts of London over recent years, totally right that they don't belong on our NRL pages, but for me they do have a place on English Super League pages. With regards to current club, they do have a home on both Southern and Northern Hemisphere pages. Alexsanderson83 11:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll give you several reasons why "current club" shouldn't appear without "club number" and hence not on Australian infoboxes:
(1) The current club is normally stated in the opening line of the article anyway
(2) It should seem pretty obvious to anybody looking at the infobox as to what club the player is currently at (by looking at the list of clubs)
(3) It looks bad being seeing the line is virtually repeated twice within a few lines on the majority of articles (one-club players)
(4) We voted that it should be removed anyway
I understand both your and Londo06's opinions that club numbers are important in the UK - that is why I am willing to compromise on having it put alongside a field that we voted shouldn't be there in the first place anyway. MDM (talk) 11:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Appreciate the attempts at a compromise, but it really doesn't look that great. That's where I fall on the matter; they don't have a place on NRL player pages, but they do for English Super League players, just not like that as it doesn't look too flash. Alexsanderson83 12:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
So we just wanna find a layout for Super League players (since all agree this isn't even an issue for NRL players) that looks best? Can you give me an example of a SL player with the new infobox with further explanation of what looks bad about it? And any ideas for improvement if any? Ta.--Jeff79 (talk) 12:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
eg. Ben Galea. I would have the number below the current club. No major re-formatting or re-vamping, just below. And for NRL players that club number wouldn't be filled and therefore wouldn't appear. Alexsanderson83 12:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

-

Ok, I see what you mean now. So you'd prefer the club number to be on its own line directly under the club. I kinda think that works better stylistically than having (number X) in brackets after the current club too. Although I don't feel strongly about it. If the guys concerned with current SL players won't push for the club & number fields appearing in curent NRL players' infoboxes, then the guys concerned with current NRL players shouldn't really push for a layout change in current SL players' infoboxes. I think it's ok to let the SL guys have the layout they like since it has no real effect on NRL guys anyway.--Jeff79 (talk) 13:18, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
That's where I come from as well, doesn't affect the NRL pages as that field doesn't mean anything to us anyway. Alexsanderson83 13:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Not really a fan of this proposed style that I've seen with Matt Gidley. Can we please go back to the template that we had a few days ago, the squad number looks awful when placed there.  CorleoneSerpicoMontana  07:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Just seen what this new style does, and it looks pretty crap if you'll pardon my bad language.Londo06 06:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I think we've all generally accepted the formatting of current club as crap. How about we remove "Current club" (for all players) and just have a cap number for NH players. That to me would be alright.  The Windler talk  09:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the problem with that is they're not cap numbers. I'm not really that familiar with the numbering system in Super League mind you. I was under the impression that 'cap number' referred to the sequence in which players make their debut for a team, so these days cap numbers are in their hundreds. I don't think cap numbers can be in the infobox as each club would have to have one. If known, they can be mentioned in the article text where the player's club changes/debuts are mentioned. The numbers for SL players are more like squad numbers (I think). It'd be nice if someone could put some info about them in the Super League article, which would also help justify why they're important and necessary in the infobox. Do they change each season? Or players keep the one number till they leave the club? If a player has the number are we absolutely guaranteed that only he will play in that number? Either way, some people have asserted their importance and I'm not familiar enough with Super League to oppose them. So if the club number remains in the infobox, I get the feeling that there needs to be a corresponding club. I thought that the club number being present was what the inclusion of a current club field hinged on, as the number alone would be quite meaningless. I can understand that, especially if a player's club number will change if he moves to another team. I think going back to how it was ('current club' with 'number' below) and making sure everyone understands that neither field should appear in NRL players' articles will result in the least conflict.--Jeff79 (talk) 10:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

It is similar to the AFL system, in which you may be more familiar. In AFL, take a player like Barry Hall. Barry Hall had the number #25 on his back for his 6 years at St Kilda. But when he moved to Sydney he got the number 1, and has had that since. Thats the closest I can compare to the Super League players. The Wikipedia AFL player articles dosen't seem to have any consistent infobox guidelines. Some like Adam Goodes have the club and number there, Barry Hall dosen't.  The Windler talk  11:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Actually most current players have what Adam Goodes has. But there are still some inconsistencies (they have more than 1, maybe even 3 infoboxes they can use). On our front, I'm willing to let the number go to a new line, but I still rather for the whole thing to go away.  The Windler talk  11:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

For Super League squad numbers they are very similar to Premier League (English football) squad numbers. The core squad will normally occupy the first 25, with several juniors getting later squad numbers. Teams such as Leeds and St Helens quite often will feature teams with close to 1 through 17 on there backs, whereas others may not. Some players choose numbers on superstition, some mid-season transfers get stuck with high numbers, but normally players would want a number closest to the 13 or 17 as possible. Fans often get replica shirts with player names and numbers on the back of their shirts. Just trying to paint a picture of why they are a part of English sport; cricket, football, rugby league, basketball, etc.Londo06 07:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

As with the Adam Goodes article I feel it does look better with the number below.Londo06 07:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Can someone fix it because it really doesn't look very good. We are trying to move the infobox forwards and this just makes it look like the squad numbers were a bit of an afterthought.  CorleoneSerpicoMontana  08:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Cheers SpecialWindler, thought I might mess up the infobox if I tried to fix it. Looks great.  CorleoneSerpicoMontana  08:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I think current club should be automatic for any league. There are so many players out there that cannot be distinguished between retirees and current players. Also there is the fact that it looks not so great, and that we seem to be going it alone on this infobox in terms of current club, and for one country only. Fronsdorf (talk) 09:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Will look into doing something in my sandbox, as the current version with 5 fields doesn't look great, let's be honest about it, it does not look good at all.Londo06 19:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Cannot be distinguished? You don't think people might just read the lede to the article if they are confused by the infobox in any way at all? •Florrie•leave a note• 03:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Seems to quite a thorny issue this one. For me a return to form would be the simplest solution; for SL players there would be three fields filled, and for our NRL players there would only be the two. Alexsanderson83 18:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Nope, not a thorny issue at all. I've heard only two arguments for the inclusion of the "current club" field in the infobox:

  1. All other sports have them in their infoboxes, and
  2. It's no good just having the squad number alone.

As for the first argument, this just isn't the case. See Markus Naslund (NHL), Jonny Wilkinson (R. Union), Ben Cousins (AFL) and Sachin Tendulkar (cricket). As for the second argument, it only applies to Super League players and no one else. So that leaves a total of zero effective arguments for the inclusion of a current club field for NRL players. The arguments against are quite obvious. It's clear enough as it is. Ask a friend or family member to come to the computer, and to type in either Matt Prior or Shannon Hegarty or Petero Civoniceva or any of the abovememntioned athletes and see how long it takes them to find out if he's retired or still playing. Give readers some credit. The people who I assume are more familiar than me with Super League have insisted that the squad numbers, and hence the current club, be included in the infobox and I'm not resisting that. But there is absolutely nothing to say they're needed for NRL players. Things should be left as they are.--Jeff79 (talk) 03:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Heights and weights

Karmichael Hunt uses "height(m)" and "weight(kg)" parameters for the infobox. Shouldn't these appear regardless?  The Windler talk  11:27, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't notify the project on this one, but I removed all four of those m/kg/ft/lb fields given the bot had disregarded them anyway. I think every article that used to use these has been accounted for - I'm sorry I forgot to amend Hunt's article. Let me know if there's a problem with removing these fields - it just seemed that we didn't need them though. MDM (talk) 12:01, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Australian Schoolboys and Prime Minsiters XIII in Infobox.

I'm not a fan of the Australan Schoolboys and Prime Ministers XIII teams in the representative part of the players infobox. I would propose to have them removed. On the grounds, that there not really rep fixtures, and nothing that can't be said in the article. Any other thoughts, opinions.  The Windler talk  08:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree completely. I think rugby league is the only sport on Wikipedia that currently lists a schoolboy team in the infobox. It's absurd and must go.--Jeff79 (talk) 08:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I really didn't think that we would ever need to reiterate the point that the infobox is only for top level teams. This has been discussed many times. MDM (talk) 06:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
The problem is, that 2 weeks ago, I removed it from Karmichael Hunt, and it is back there an hour or so latr.  The Windler talk  06:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I just wish people could understand that when we want content not to appear in the infobox, that doesn't mean we're trying to obscure it or that we don't want it appearing at all. I think schoolboy rep teams being detailed in the article is great and is an important piece of information that enriches a player's biography. But trying to cram as much content in the infobox regardless of relevance really cheapens it and gives the distinct impression that editors desparately want the infobox to be filled (even if it means putting in minor teams, obscure nicknames, etc.). To me, a meatier body of text is far more impressive than a long and colourful infobox. Sometimes less is more.--Jeff79 (talk) 06:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I think we should outline on the documentation page of the infobox what should and shouldn't be in the infobox. And offenders (if I use that word) who add these things should be refereed to the documentation. Remember that only project members that look at this page will know of the guidelines, we haven't exactly made it clear. I'll make the page up now, give me a bit of time.  The Windler talk  06:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It was something that was agreed upon that only teams with articles would be included within the infobox. Alexsanderson83 07:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

That wasn't the only rule in place, it was a side rule that was meant to rule out City Firsts (I was under the impression it got rejected anyway). The main rule is that the club/team is notable within its own state. And I certainely don't know anything about the schoolboys other than information I researched for the Karmichael Hunt article.  The Windler talk  08:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Also, I have started a MOS for the infobox, any help is appreciated here.  The Windler talk  08:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with the MOS on current club for our NRL players. I know certain people agree on a position, but it is far from set in stone. Alexsanderson83 17:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

If there is an article, then there is a place. For me they should definitely stay. Fronsdorf (talk) 20:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

As before, definitely one that should stay. Alexsanderson83 17:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we should vote on inclusion right here and now:

Voting for the inclusion of junior represetative teams in the representative section:

  • Oppose--Jeff79 (talk) 18:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
  • SuppportLondo06 19:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose  The Windler talk  02:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose -- try expanding the article with the information. It's not that hard. PS. I thought we'd been here/done that? •Florrie•leave a note• 02:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - same for the Junior Kiwis.  CorleoneSerpicoMontana  08:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Wholly support Alexsanderson83 18:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Suppport--sss333 (talk) 00:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose - Firstly because this has already been discussed. Secondly because it isn't part of a player's professional career, which is what the infobox is summarising. MDM (talk) 10:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Template {{nobreak}}

I have noticed the use of {{nobreak}} on clubs like St george illawarra Dragons to get the whole name to fit in the template in one line. Should we allow this? Should we work it into the template. I don't really like it.  The Windler talk  09:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

What we need to do is make a template where we test every club name to its full length and test every option possible with breaking. Based on the results we find (across a number of browsers), we'll then write up a manual of style. I'll start off now. Stay tuned. MDM (talk) 11:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Check out User:MDM/Sandbox6 and add your comments on the page as to which clubs are broken over two separate lines. The numbers I have used represent a worst case scenario in terms of the column widths. MDM (talk) 12:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Only a few players would have more that 1000 points. Considering Andrew Johns is the leading pointscorer with 2100 something. I doubt they'd have 1000 goals. Even Hazem would be pushing it. Anyway. The consensus would be on whether to allow {{nobreak}} for those teams. It does make a big difference, but I would like a generic width around the template. I don't want one wider than another.
The other option is what names are shortened to. While St George Illawarra Dragons can be shortened St Georgge Illawarra easily. I would shorten Manly Waringah Sea Eagles to manly Sea Eagles rather than Manly-Warringah.
I have fixed and finished my MOS, I would like someone to check over it for proper reasons. Its here.  The Windler talk  12:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I saw your nobreak edit and I don't like it either. The only way to keep EVERYTHING on one line is to shorten club names. The template defeats the purpose as the "years" columns gets broken up. MDM (talk) 12:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
The only reason why I prefer "Manly-Warringah" and "Cronulla-Sutherland" are because they are the proper names of the club, much like "Bulldogs". Some people might not like it, but I'd prefer "Manly-Warringah" than "Manly Sea Eagles". I've never heard anybody say "Manly Sea Eagles". MDM (talk) 12:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Do you not watch any NRL on the telly, as they are largely called the 'Manly Sea Eagles' in commentary by Fox Sports and Channel 9. Fronsdorf (talk) 10:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Doesn't matter does it? This is an encyclopaedia. They still refer to the NRL as "first grade" in the commentry box too despite reserve grade and third grade no longer existing. The other day Sterlo said "Canterbury" when referring to the Bulldogs, which is fine in conversation, but not for an encyclopedia.--Jeff79 (talk) 10:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I agree we should drop the mascot before we drop a part of the proper name. •Florrie•leave a note• 02:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I would have to say I am split on where I stand if I'm honest. If we are looking to go one way or another then I may have to abstain. With a side like the Rabbitohs then I would go with South Sydney for a shortened version, however for a side like Manly I would always call todays side the Manly Sea Eagles. For North Queensland Cowboys I would have North Queensland rather than NQ Cowboys and I would have Cronulla Sharks rather than Cronulla-Sutherland and St George Illwarra rather than SGI Dragons, etc. Londo06 07:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Current Club

Am I mistaken or was the current club field not linked to club number so that it didn't show for NRL players? I've noticed quite a few NRL players with a current club displayed where before, even if the field was entered, it did not display. •Florrie•leave a note• 07:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

What articles is this on, I would like to see.  The Windler talk  07:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Don't worry, I've fixed it. Someone reverted it on the template page.  The Windler talk  07:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Not sure. I've been taking current club fields out of NRL and retired players' infoboxes and I don't expect to be reverted. For Super League players I've left it in.--Jeff79 (talk) 07:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! •Florrie•leave a note• 07:59, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I would be in favour of it for our players as well as the English ones, were it to be brought into the open again. Alexsanderson83 08:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

We've had this discussion before, and it was agreed that only SL players would have current club. The forcing of club number just is a measure as NRL players do not have numbers.  The Windler talk  08:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

As long as we've got them for Super League players I'm not massively bothered about players in the NRL at this point in time, although our ones do look ugly at the minute. MortonStalker (talk) 10:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC) For someone like myself it would be very useful. I watched my first NRL Grand Final at the weekend, and really enjoyed. When I look through Australian players I often have to go all the way to the bottom to find out what club they play for. GarethHolteDavies (talk) 08:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Consensus

Most of you would be pleased to know that in light of this, it now looks like a whole host of previously unresolved votes did in fact have consensus and can now be closed.--Jeff79 (talk) 03:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Somehow I always suspected this, especially with Londo and Corleone. It was just too much of a coincidence that a stack of new users joined the project from nowhere and voted all the same way when we opened the polls - and had that same policy of making no compromises that Londo always had.
Jeff, you are a saint - I can't thank you enough for stitching all of this together. I'm absolutely ecstatic that we can now get on with the job at hand and know that we can fix everything up to prime standard without fear of retribution from a group of editors (now, zero). MDM (talk) 05:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
So with all votes by the editors in that case (except 1, I suppose) can be ignored. This might change a few of the votes a few months ago on the infobox final votes. I'll check this. Most of our pointless discussions are with these people/person so ... good.  The Windler talk  06:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Do we know where we stand yet with the !votes? Can all that club number business be reverted? •Florrie•leave a note• 13:59, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm considering printing off the checkuser report and framing it. •Florrie•leave a note• 13:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Unbelievable. Presumably Alexsanderson83 (talk · contribs) gave himself barnstars as Londo06 (talk · contribs). What a wanker.-Sticks66 19:45, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Now knowing what we know about socks, would it be appropriate to remove the sock members from the project participants list? Do we need them there as a reminder? •Florrie•leave a note• 07:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
As no-one objected, I have marked the sock-puppets as sock-puppets on the member's list and made them "in-active" but have not removed the names. •Florrie•leave a note• 13:59, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
As per the case above, he's still at it and has been blocked. Keep an eye out for newbies that pick things up too quickly.--Jeff79 (talk) 14:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Infobox_rugby_league_biography/Infobox_upgrade_2008_page_2&oldid=1141890016"