Template talk:Fb si player

Undisclosed and N/A

See Template talk:Fb in player for changes in Undisclosed and N/A.--ClaudioMB (talk) 04:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Age

There seems to be something wrong with the Age template. It displays age as ex, 27.000000000000000. This is probably not due to this template. But is something to be noted. Digirami (talk) 05:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

New format

I am just wondering if how the changes by Digirami benefit the template. To me personally, the whole point of the template is to give the reader an opportunity to sort the columns but for some bizarre reason Digirami has changed this so that the Nationality column is now combined with the Name column and jsut the one column is justified to the left. That seems rather pointless to me and means that that one column is different to the rest and the continuity of the "Fb" templates is demolished. As a result, I would that it would make sense to move it back. Any thoughts? --T1v37r (talk) 19:44, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with T1v37r. I don't see any advantage combining those 2 columns, I only see one problem: unable to sort by country. Furthermore, we need to be extra careful to change templates, because they are used by several pages. So, if the only reason for that change was visual, I believe it should be changed back.--ClaudioMB (talk) 22:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I'm changing it back. If Digirami, or anyone else has a good reason for the new format, please, lets discuss it before doing it.--ClaudioMB (talk) 22:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Nationality column was not sorting. I've just changed the fb_flag template to do so. --ClaudioMB (talk) 23:35, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Claudio, it's much better now! --T1v37r (talk) 09:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I have few issues with this template. For one, nationality: In this template, we separate it. I'm not sure why and it doesnt seem clear cause we don't do that practice elsewhere, like in a goal scorer's table for an international tournament (for example: here). We should probably just keep primary nationality, only. Second is the EU citizenship column. It should be optional. It really benefits only the teams in Europe, and there are other confederations with teams that really don't need that column at all (same would apply to the transfers templates). Third appearances and goals. Can we make it just for league appearances and goals, which is the same as what we put in the player's infoboxes. Digirami (talk) 18:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The players' nationality of the squad has great relevance, because this table is about the players' information. Some readers could want to sort by nationality. Different when the table is about goalscorer (like your example). The second nationality is also important, because its the player's birthplace (that's an important information about the player). About the EU column, I agree, it should be optional. Not an easy change, I believe. Because, it will probably need to go to all pages using this template and add a optional parameter for the header (like EU=y). (If anyone want to try it, please test on a sandbox first.) About appearances and goals, I believe it page use its own criteria. Maybe just add a footnote say so (see fb_si_footer for footnotes.) Best regards. --ClaudioMB (talk) 13:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Background

The background is optional, for those who don't want a background on the table lines, please, just leave the bg parameter empty or n ("bg=" or "bg=n").(NOB HEAD)

But, there are some contributors (go away we dont like u)who wants to use it, so its necessary to keep it on the code. --ClaudioMB (talk) 17:32, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

It maybe optional, but it's pointless to begin with, especially when the background color is the same color as the header. It negates the purpose of having the header stand out from every column of information. Plus, if you rearranged the order through sorting, the colored rows don't alternate anymore (and I'm sure you intended). Plus, users just don't know how/care to use it. And it doesn't look good either. That's why, in a separate conversation that I can't seem to find at the moment, several users decided to remove the background color from the "standings" templates.

As for nationality (in the squad statistics templates), if you have a table that counts statistics, what the point of nationality? It's exactly like having an EU citizenship column in that table... it is pointless because it doesn't add anything to that table. If you want to know their nationality, we have another table (this one) for that purpose. Digirami (talk) 19:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Because the table is wide, the background on alternated lines facilitate reading. That's the point. Also, if the background line is the same color of the header and that is confuse (what I don't agree), then we could change the color of the header background. I agree the most users don't care to keep it right, but once the season is over, someone just need to fix it once. About nationality and EU, I agree it's not very important in some tables (like stats), and could be removed. Some contributors like it, because they remove players that were transfer out during the season from this table, but don't remove from the stats. I find it wrong, because if a player played one game in the season, he/she should be kept on the squad (explaining on Notes column). But, since, those users already complained about this, you should first convince then to change their way to use the tables, instead of just do it without consideration. Regards. --ClaudioMB (talk) 17:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

You have grid to facilitate reading (which is strangely incomplete). Alternate colors makes it pointless, especially so when you rearrange the original order of names.

The header need to be fix. Should a competition have a name that exceeds the limit set in the template, it spills over and pushes the name of the adjacent competition over, thereby not keeping it inline with the statistics it should label. It gets even worse when you have two or more competitions like that. Digirami (talk) 21:28, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry took me so long to respond. Anyway, I didn't understand what is incomplete? I agree that the background doesn't help when the table is sorted, but there is no solution for that. About the competition problem, if you could link a example, then we could find a solution for the problem. --ClaudioMB (talk) 18:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Undisclosed, summer and winter

Currently, there is an edit war (also happening on Fb_in2_player and Fb_out2_player templates) about whether undisclosed, summer and winter should be shown as icon ({{Fb_undisclosed}}, {{Fb_tw_summer}} and {{Fb_tw_winter}}) or as text. Because they have been shown as icons for the past 2 years, I asked the user (Digirami) that want the change from icon to text to discuss the issue before making the change. Since, Digirami doesn't want to start a discussion, I doing.
Here my option to keep them as icon. Please, anyone feel free to add more or express support to this point of view.--ClaudioMB (talk) 19:19, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Icon:

• Keep tables with many columns narrow and easier to read. If all columns (including Nationality and EU passport) are text, that will make them too wide and crowd.
• The information they present have not searchable value. Who will search "undisclosed", "winter" or "summer"?
• These icons are way too small to slowdown any download.
• These icons used have tooltips, then they can be "read as text by devices for the visually impaired".
• These icons have been used for 2 years without complains.

Keep them as icon, it keeps tables looking cleaner and less crowded. Ceriy (talk) 19:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Text:--ClaudioMB (talk) 20:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• • Again, read MOS:IMAGES#Avoid entering textual information as images (personal preference is thrown aside when it comes to following the MOS). Indicating that a transfer window is in the summer or winter, and that a fee is undisclosed, is textual information displayed as images. To avoid it, use text. If anything, text is easier to understand than icons (especially in this case). No one needs a key to understand that "Summer" means summer (except maybe that summer in the northern hemisphere is different than in the southern, which should be mentioned in the footer).
  • Tooltips is really useful for abbreviations, like in headers. Not necessarily this case. Heck, you don't even need tooltips if you display text.
  • Who will search for that? I don't know. But someone might.
  • The tables are pretty small to begin with. But the width of each column is not affected by the text Summer, Winter, or Undisclosed (I've compared). The width stays the same.
  • The argument that it has been used for two years is moot since it can prove that you have been wrong for two years and not know it.
  • Oh, there are people (a lot I would guess) in WP:FOOTY that don't approve of these templates. One reason being that they rely too much on icons to display information that can be used as words instead. Digirami (talk) 19:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

This part of the MOS you mention about is to avoid enter text as text inside an image. That would be like if we were using a image with the text "Undisclosed" inside. That's not the case, those icons are just a small piece of information that is shown inside a table. It's like a country's flag. Are you suggesting that we should replace all flags with the name of the country?--ClaudioMB (talk) 20:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Now the Transfer Window column also allow enter a text instead using an icon. Transfer Fee, Since and Ends column has always allow enter a text. So, these templates do not force editors use icons, then the decision about using it will be on each article.--ClaudioMB (talk) 20:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

All Fb templates are open to change, but we need to respect previous use. So, normally, we ADD new features (like, making things optional) or create a copy of the template with changes (when too many). In order to change something that will affect old articles, the responsible for the change SHOULD have a consensus from the articles' editors.--ClaudioMB (talk) 20:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Flagicons have their own guidelines (see MOS:FLAG). Either way, text is better and easier than images or icons (as you can see by my arguments). ::::I think you're starting to realize that you didn't think these template through when you made them considering the recent string of changes. Next time you create a template, I suggest you don't without getting other opinions on the design. It's no wonder more and more season articles are not using them. Digirami (talk) 20:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you think that was too many changes? That was nothing! You didn't see the history of those templates. But, all changes are to add new feature and the first season article using these templates still as when it was created. These templates are just an optional for editors. Some like it, some don't. But, this as is the first time that someone makes changes without any consideration to the others editors that are using them. That was is very upsetting. --ClaudioMB (talk) 21:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I must say that I feel that keeping icons for the Undisclosed, Summer and Winter text phrases would be good. I am the primary contributor and creator of the Leeds United season articles, which use the Fb templates throughout. I saw that someone had removed the Undisc icon and immediately thought it looked messy. As a regular Wikipedia contributor but also someone who reads Wikipedia as an audience as such, I personally find that icons make things a lot easier to read. If you were to remove the ? icon for Undisclosed then why not remove the flags, the EU flag, the X for "no", then remove the red and yellow card images for the Disciplinary Record templates..... etc etc. Where do you stop. I can understand where you are coming from Digirami, but I think you are being too pinickerty and fully support ClaudioMB who has spent a lot of time and effort in successfully creating these FB templates and has done a damn good job with them. There's no point in getting personal and it is very embarrassing to see you doing so. May I also request that in future you recognise that there are other editors apart from yourself and that big changes should be discussed and an consensus made before you edit the templates to your own preference. It would be interesting to hear other people's views on this matter and until a consensus is made, I think that the templates should remain the same as they have done for the past two years. --t1v37r (talk) 22:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

So, ClaudioMB, you're saying that it's ok for you to make changes to the templates without a discussion, but not someone else. That's what the track record seems to imply at least since the talk pages in these template don't seem to open unless someone, like myself, have made an edit to them. And even if someone wants to change something, the recent track record doesn't look good either. For example: sometime ago I questioned the need for an EU column since there are other five confederations where that doesn't matter. But that went unanswered/unresponded. So it would seem that when someone brings up something to change or reconsider, no one cares to respond in a timely fashion.

But I'll go back to the discussion at hand about these icons. Words are unambiguous and clear, especially so in this case. Icons only become clear once meaning is assigned to it. Without a meaning, a sun icon is a sun icon and could mean daytime. But the word summer means summer. Simple. Same goes to other parameter: why does a red x have to equal no? Why can't no mean no? Or yes when it comes to having EU citizenship?

And again, flagicons have their own clear defined usage, which after reading, I'm doubting whether there should be two flagicons in some cases since flagicons should only indicate their sporting nationality. Because these template also show nationality of birth, which is of a non-sporting nature, the flagicon usage in these template are not fully inline with the MOS. Digirami (talk) 02:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

First, lots of people have already made changes on fb templates without any problem (for example, look Fb_cl_team). Also, some editors don't know how to do it and they ask me (on my talk page) to do so. But, you are missing the most important point. These templates are used by several others editors (this one is used on over 60 articles). So, if someone changes a template, but the change is not well receive by some editors, then he/she should undo it and start a discussion to find a consensus. That's simple. Imagine, if someone goes and completely change an article that you have been working for awhile. Aren't you going to revert it and ask him/her to discuss it before make the changes? Because, I believe anyone would do that. So, please, remember that changing a template WILL change ALL articles that are using it.

But, for example, if, without any discussion or waiting, you have changed this template to make EU column optional without alter ANY other article (what I'm in the process of doing so), I'm sure no one would complain or revert it back. On the contrary, editors would see you as a great contributor, because that would solve a problem for all non-EU teams.

About the icons, the rational is that:

• so, you are complain that these templates use icons to show information on a computer. Is that revolutionary? Never used before? No one will understand that? Is that what you are saying? Really!? Bits of information that are repeated often (like yes or no, summer or winter, undisclosed on these tables) can be easy read with icons. That's used everywhere. If you drive, what do you see? Sentences like "Left turn" or a sign? If you go to a public washroom, there are words "Men" and "Women" or signs? Right now, look at your screen and count how many icons do you see? On Wikipedia, on the top of the editing window you used to right your points, you found 20 icons. Why didn't Wikipedia use simple plain words? For example, instead of an icon, why didn't they wrote "Mathematical formula (LaTex)"?
• the icons used here are NOT out of the context. In a EU citizenship column you see a EU flag and a X, what do you understand? On transfer window, where we have two possible options (summer and winter, what should be improved for accept different regions), if you see a {{Fb_tw_summer}} or a {{Fb_tw_winter}} (if anyone could find a good snowflake, that would be better), what's your conclusion? They are not mind-boggling, are they?
• the same way that showing a flag is better that writing down the country's name, some icons are better than words.
• it's easy for a large table (with several columns) become text crowd and not attractive to read it. Icons fix that.
• on football (maybe not common on other sports), people always mention the birth place of a player when is not the same as the one he/she internationally plays for.

--ClaudioMB (talk) 19:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• On the last point, when it comes to flagicons and sportsperson, the MOS is clear: only use flagicons to represent a player's sporting nationality, and not anything of a non-sporting nature. Sorry to say, but if you have two flagicons and the second is used to indicate a player's country of birth because his sporting nationality is different, that is wrong. The second flagicon has to go.
• I'm not complaining so much as presenting a clearly better option in this case. Why was the ever a need for icons in the first place when using the words "summer", "winter", and "undisclosed" is more enough? Was using words too much for some users? Or just too simple? Same with EU citizenship. I can't see how putting "yes" or "no" was not easier than the EU flagicon or a red X.
• These tables, because of the large squads most teams have, are going to have some degree of difficulty of reading all the information present. Icons don't necessarily better that. Instead of repeated words, you have repeated icons. You can also fixed the width of certain parts of the header to make certain things more readable in their columns.
• I don't know what you've seen, but there are a lot of bathrooms that say "men" or "women". Digirami (talk) 02:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposed removal of second nationality parameter

A discussion on this proposal is taking place over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Proposed removal of second nationality parameter from Template:Fb si player. Cheers, Number 57 20:08, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Assists parameter

Would it be possible to have an assists parameter added to this template for the number of assists made by a player for the club to compliment the appearances and goals statistics? Ratchet8865 (talk) 09:36, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Params e and f don't behave as documented

The documentation suggests that if e and f are "NOT defined = NO column". What does this mean in practice? I've added Template:Fb si player/testcases that demonstrates adding the params, omitting the params, and leaving the params blank, and the table markup for the column appears each time. Either the "NOT defined" behaviors should be removed from the documentation, or the template should be fixed. (I'll see what I can do but this is out of my expertise.) -Socccc (talk) 16:36, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Made the e and f params optional, following the implementation of the optional eu param, and also made them optional in {{Fb si header}}. Please revert if this behavior is unwanted; I've tested the modification against several transclusions but don't know how to do so across all of them. I can't make heads or tails of this syntax, sorry. Reverted. Instead will remove the documentation suggesting that omitting the values will omit the columns. -Socccc (talk) 17:46, 27 June 2023 (UTC)