Template talk:Infobox athlete

Height and weight

If he or she is American, put measurements in feet and inches first, then in meters in parentheses. If he or she is not American, place measurements in meters first, then in feet and inches in parentheses.

This is not the best way. I'd suggest this: if you can find a reference in meters, then put it first, and add feet and inches in parentheses - or vice versa if the reference says feet and inches. Of course, for American athletes one is more likely to find referenced data in feet and inches, but whether the athlete is American or not is by itself of no consequence. GregorB (talk) 12:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. Does anyone have any objections? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 15:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

No objections. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 16:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Sounds perfectly rational to me. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits)^{WIKIPROJECT ATHLETICS NEEDS YOU!} 02:18, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Just thought of something, though. If we go with GregorB's suggestion, what if one source gives an athlete's height in feet and inches, while another source gives the same athlete's weight in kilograms? Wouldn't it look a bit strange if the information was stated like this?

Height: 6 feet 1 inch (1.85 m)^[1]

Weight: 60 kilograms (130 lb)^[2]

It may be better to stick to the present rule, but ask editors to add a reference for the height or weight. That way, if any reader wishes to verify the information, he or she can consult the reference which will indicate if the information was originally given in Imperial or metric units. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 04:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

If such cases arise, then the information should be in the athlete's native format (e.g. ft/lb for Brit and US and m/kg for pretty much everyone else) and citations should be given. Personally, I always found the weight columns very strange as such figures regularly fluctuate. On the other hand, many sources seem to opt for including this information so I suppose we should as well. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits)^{WIKIPROJECT ATHLETICS NEEDS YOU!} 09:54, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I could think of an even worse example, and that's two weights (say, in different years), one in kilograms and one in pounds. My guess is that such cases are very rare, and these template instructions are at best only recommendations, so editors are free to do the reasonable thing anyway.

In a large number of cases, present rule would lead to situations in which a source (say, IAAF site) says someone is 1.82 m tall, and then you edit the article and find {{convert|6|ft}} or so attributed to the same source, but with no mention of the original figure (except in parentheses, when transcluded). I have picked the 1.82 figure deliberately: rounded to the nearest inch, it's 6 ft 0 in, but rounded back to the nearest centimeter it's 1.83 m. Normally, if you cite someone that cited someone that cited someone, etc., and if everyone cited correctly, then what you end up with is the original - but that's not necessarily the case according to present recommendation. GregorB (talk) 10:31, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

My thoughts:

• As regarding changing heights and weights, note that the template documentation already states: "After the height, add the year when the height was measured in parentheses; this is particularly important for sportspersons who have not reached their adult height", and "After the weight, add the year when the weight was measured in parentheses".
• I see the problem that GregorB has pointed out, but am not sure what we should do about this.
  • One solution is to advise editors not to use the {{Convert}} template and to set out the Imperial measurements and metric equivalents (or vice versa) by hand, but this means having to work out the conversions manually instead of having the very-handy {{Convert}} template do it automatically.
  • Alternatively, we could remind editors in the documentation that if the source actually states the converted figure, then they have to tweak the parameters of the {{Convert}} template to ensure that that figure is correctly represented. To use GregorB's example, if the source says an American athlete is 1.82 m tall, then an editor should type {{convert|5|ft|11.7|in|m|2}} in order to get the result "5 feet 11.7 inches (1.82 m)" (this required a bit of experimenting with the {{Convert}} template in a sandbox) instead of {{convert|6|ft|0|in|m|2}} which would yield "6 feet 0 inches (1.83 m)".

— Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 17:49, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

In fact, I could have made things simpler by quoting WP:UNITS right away: If editors cannot agree on the sequence of units, put the source value first and the converted value second. GregorB (talk) 18:04, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't we try to reach consensus on the issue before applying that rule? I'm not sure the guideline had the situation in this template (i.e., possibility of Imperial measurement with metric conversion and metric measurement with Imperial conversion in adjacent fields) in mind. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 18:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

In fact, the guideline says: Use units consistently (e.g., write A 10 kg (22 lb) bag of potatoes and a 4.5 kg (10 lb) bag of carrots, not A 10 kg (22 lb) bag of potatoes and a 10 lb (4.5 kg) bag of carrots). - advising against mixing the unit order. GregorB (talk) 19:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out that WP:UNITS has a number of useful and relevant guidelines:

1. "[I]n US-specific topics, the primary units are generally US customary units, with conversions given into SI and related units".
2. "Use units consistently (e.g., write A 10 kg (22 lb) bag of potatoes and a 4.5 kg (10 lb) bag of carrots, not A 10 kg (22 lb) bag of potatoes and a 10 lb (4.5 kg) bag of carrots)."
3. "If editors cannot agree on the sequence of units, put the source value first and the converted value second."
4. "Converted values should use a level of precision similar to that of the source value, so the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth, not (236,121 mi). However, small numbers may need to be converted to a greater level of precision where rounding would cause a significant distortion, so one mile (1.6 km), not one mile (2 km)."
5. "Where footnoting or citing sources for values and units, identify both the source and the original units."

The second and third guidelines potentially conflict with each other – as indicated earlier, what should be done if, say, one source indicates an athlete's height in feet and inches and another source her weight in kilograms? I would (modestly) state that my second suggestion made at 17:49 is a good way of reconciling these guidelines. In addition, to comply with the last guideline and for greater clarity, the template documentation can remind editors to indicate the source and original units in a footnote after a height and/or weight measurement, e.g., "[source] (original measurement in feet and inches)." or "[source] (original measurement in metric units)." — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 20:01, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

On closer inspection, present infobox instructions appear to be compatible with WP:UNITS. I absolutely support the use of {{convert}}, it has many benefits. In fact, one of these benefits is the ability to cite the source verbatim, and still get converted figures without extra effort. However, your 17:49 suggestion is a good one: at any rate, at least some of the displayed figures has to match the one found in the cited source.

I've tried to find out what other similar infoboxes do, but apparently there are no explicit recommendations, which sometimes leads to funny results (see Pete Sampras). GregorB (talk) 00:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I've augmented the template documentation based on the above discussion. See what you think. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 04:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Very good. GregorB (talk) 20:24, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Merging functionality / features with Infobox Runner

As part of standardization of the articles about athletics, it seems that most of us have agreed to use this infobox, and that Infobox Runner is deprecated. However, Infobox Runner has some features that I think need to be incorporated into this infobox. However, I don't know really know how to make infoboxes. Could anybody do this for me? In particular, I would like the following: the nice blue headers for each category, the wider width of the infobox (otherwise many entries will wrap to the next line), the three blue headers being "personal information", "personal bests", and "medal record". Mipchunk (talk) 04:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

{{Infobox Athlete}} makes use of the {{infobox}} template. As such, the width of the template is standardized, and I believe that most editors feel that the width should not be arbitrarily changed. Also, there was a previous discussion on whether headings should have background colours, and the conclusion then was that there should not be any coloured backgrounds unless a full colour scheme for different athletics events is agreed upon: see "Removal of coloured backgrounds of headings" above. However, it is certainly open to you to propose (with cogent reasons) on this talk page that these matters be reopened for discussion, and see what other editors think. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 09:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

If the styling needs to be changed then that's trivial to do. For now, let's work on getting the merge done. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Apart from the header background colours mentioned by Mipchunk, which parameters of {{Infobox Runner}} need to be merged with {{Infobox Athlete}}? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 16:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Residence

I'd suggest changing the order of infobox rows so that residence comes after date and place of birth - it appears more natural to me, following the order in which same data are usually presented in the article intro. GregorB (talk) 19:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Makes sense. Let's see if there are any other views. If not, either of us can effect the change. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 21:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Changed. GregorB (talk) 10:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

In fact, there is a same issue with nickname - if it needs to be displayed at all, it should be after the date and place of birth/death. I'm going to be bold with this one and move it down. GregorB (talk) 10:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

No, changed my mind. It's right after the birth name and full name - maybe not ideal if these two are missing, but makes sense. GregorB (talk) 10:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, all the name-related fields should be together. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 12:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

By the way, could you change the position of the residence parameter in {{Infobox sportsperson}} as well, if you haven't already done so? There shouldn't be significant differences between the two infoboxes without a good reason. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 12:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I can't, unfortunately, it's protected. GregorB (talk) 16:24, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Done by editprotected request. GregorB (talk) 02:03, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Great! Thanks. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 07:12, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Regional finals

Are continental championship achievements supposed to go in this parameter? Parutakupiu (talk) 22:00, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Can you give an example? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 06:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

European championships (indoor or outdoor). See Rui Silva. Regional finals to me sounds like intra-national but inter-regional events. Parutakupiu (talk) 14:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I see what you mean. The term regional does sound intra-national, but is continental a common term for events that are between countries but within a particular continent? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 15:18, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I would think so, no? Still, I'm not sure and I haven't found a precedent in other articles using this infobox. Parutakupiu (talk) 16:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you could do a bit of research and find out if there are standard names for such competitions? You could also post messages at "Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Athletics" and "Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sports" and ask editors there to participate in this discussion so we can get more views on the matter. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 16:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I will do that. In any case, if necessary, one can add that "continental" parameter... Or better (but more complex) display the continent according to the country the athlete represents. Parutakupiu (talk) 16:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I've used it before. Here's one I put in. Anna Włodarczyk. Was I wrong to do so?Trackinfo (talk) 19:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not certain from the above what "regional" means, so perhaps a renaming to align with whatever the IAAF notes is in order. There has been a very brief discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Athletics#IAAF federations and records about the IAAF's division of countries and whether we should be listing "area records" or "continental records". Is there any reason to believe that adding area/continental championships would clutter the box? Location (talk) 19:09, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

No, but I think we should find out what the proper terminology is (assuming that there is some consistent usage). — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 20:16, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

"Area championships" is the correct term (i.e. championships organised by the area associations), but this would exclude competitions such as the Commonwealth Games. Perhaps this was the original idea behind that wording? As it stands, these sections and the medal record section are pretty much complete duplicates now. For example, the only difference between the information on the Rui Silva infobox is that the "achievements and titles" section has a more arcane emphasis (i.e. treating indoor titles as having parity of importance with outdoor ones/Team Championship gold over European silver). It makes sense to either (a) merge the two functions in some way, or (b) use the main infobox text for just global level achievements while leaving lesser achievements to the medal record. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits)^{Join WikiProject Athletics!} 22:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree with your second point. In fact, I wanted to cover that point because when I last edited that infobox, it felt like I was indeed duplicating content. The only parameters whose data is not duplicated in the nested medal templates is the (supposedly intra-national) "regional finals" (I guess this is more adequate for U.S. regional competitions, no?) and the "national finals". If not for them, I'd say we rename the section to "Achievements", displaying only the personal bests. Parutakupiu (talk) 23:07, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

So if I get this right, is the suggestion that "regional" should be retained for intra-national competitions, and that "area" should be added for competitions between nations within a geographical area such as a continent? Also, I would have thought that competitions such as the Commonwealth Games would be regarded as "international". — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 07:08, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Both the World Championships and the Olympics are also "international" events but at a global scale, not confined to a specific area. They are special cases so they have their own parameters. The Commonwealth Games just happen to have a "global" status because that's how dispersed the British Empire used to be. Similar games like the Francophonie Games or Lusophony Games are not that known or big in participation but they fit in the same jar. I'd say these events are between the Olympics/Worlds and the Nationals. But anyway, I'm seeing that you people want to keep the "Achievements and titles" section? I think it's unnecessary: besides duplicating content it extends the infobox length quite considerably... Parutakupiu (talk) 12:23, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Personally I like the infoboxes on articles. It makes them look more significant than just another text article. From the American side of the pond, we don't tend to have tremendously deep listings on Regional/Area competitions drowning out Olympic achievements. Generally the Olympic/World Champion level athletes don't compete at, say, the Pan Am Games level after getting to the higher level, so it would be a one off achievement on the way up. The exception was the 1987 Pan Am Games held in the USA, where it wasn't the ordeal to travel for the prima donnas. With upper level achievements taking up significant space, editors tend to ignore adding lesser events. Gail Devers for example, has six Indoor World Championship medals, but the editors who have done that article have judiciously chosen to only mention one (and why the one I don't know), dwarfed by her eleven Olympic/World Championship medals. For a Todd Riech, a Pan Am Games medal would be a crowning achievement. By the way, he and far too many of our athlete articles do not even have infoboxes at all, just a wikitable of their achievements. That is far less attractive, much less the inconsistency of style issue. Some other global competitions that are used in infoboxes are the Universiade and the IAAF World Junior Championships in Athletics.Trackinfo (talk) 17:34, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I think having both an "Achievements and titles" section and a medal table in the infobox gives more flexibility to editors. Some editors may want to highlight particularly significant achievements in the "Achievements and titles" section and have a more comprehensive listing in the medal table, while others may omit the "Achievements and titles" section and just use the medal table. The template documentation does not currently prescribe how these parts of the infobox should be used. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 18:08, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Show medals or not?

The template currently has a "show-medals" argument that defaults to "no". An argument has been made that in the vast majority of cases there's no reason not to show a medal box, so the default should be set to "yes", leaving editors an option to hide to box by overriding this value. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Athletics#Infobox_runner for the initial discussion. Comments? GregorB (talk) 21:29, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

• An athlete lives and is known by his/her results, wins... medals. I think the medals should be displayed by default, not hidden. The option should be to hide it, not reveal it. Parutakupiu (talk) 21:50, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
• Absolutely show the medals. It is their primary claim to fame. There is one editor who is spreading this hidden medal table across our many articles. I have asked him to stop. Trackinfo (talk) 22:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
• I agree. Please show the medals. Location (talk) 23:18, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
• Comment: The medal table can sometimes be very long. Would showing it by default disrupt the text flow in such articles? That having been said, I have no strong objection either way, since it is possible to selectively hide the medal table in individual articles. (I'll let the discussion go on a bit more, and if there is consensus I'll make the change, or someone else can do it as well if they wish to.) — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 04:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, in my haste I did not include relevant comments I posted elsewhere. When an athlete, like say a Carl Lewis has a long resume of Olympic and World Championship medals, then they would quite likely have a significant article to match, meaning the medal count will not overwhelm the content of the article. In the rare case that it does, secondary event medals (like Lewis' Pan Am Games medals) might be pared down. Outside of Track and Field I think the most extreme case would be Michael Phelps, whose article has duplicated the medal table into each sub-section (which emphasizes the importance medals have even to the top level athletes). But these will be rare individual cases. The default should be to keep the medal table ON.

By the way, the editor I asked to stop calls the Infobox change necessary because the previous look--the one that has served us well for years--is "deprecated." He's already done, at my estimation, over 400 articles in the last two days (probably working with some BOT software). The only fix is to fix the default. We are days behind his tracks, it should be done soon. Trackinfo (talk) 06:15, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that matter needs to be discussed either at "Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Athletics" or even by starting a request for comment at that talk page or here. Altering the infobox by itself is not going to do much good, because if one specifies a value for |show-medals=, that will override the default, whatever it is. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 07:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, it has already been discussed there... My hunch is that explicit show-medals is absent from nearly all transclusions. Even if such instances remain, or if there are aesthetic problems with long medal tables, net effect of this template change should still be positive. GregorB (talk) 08:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done. OK, I have updated the template. Let me know if there are any issues or problems. You may want to check transclusions and selectively hide medal tables that are too long in comparison to the article length. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 08:37, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the change. For athletes with extensive achievements it makes sense to strip it down to just Olympic and World medals. If a multiple major medallist doesn't have the text to match then I would argue that's a problem with the article not a problem with the infobox. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits)^{Join WikiProject Athletics!} 22:49, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Medal templates as a pseudo-infobox

How should we deal with instances of the medal templates, used as a pseudo-infobox? Your comments would be welcome at Template talk:MedalTop#Name, redux. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:34, 6 March 2012 (UTC)