Template talk:Infobox athlete/2009 archive

Date of last update

I'm surprised to see that this template has a "last updated" date. I think it's not a good idea; since there is no guarantee that the date is accurate; or that when one fact was changed, others were re-verified. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Provided that the existing information in the infobox is referenced (see, for instance, "Oscar Pistorius"), does it matter that it has not been re-verified when new information has been added? It seems to me the problem you've raised applies to Wikipedia generally, so it's just an inherent feature of the encyclopedia. At any time, there may be information in an article that is out of date. Similarly, an editor may deliberately or inadvertently put down an incorrect "last updated" date, but that risk occurs with all Wikipedia content. All we can rely on is other editors spotting the mistakes or out-of-date information and remedying them. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 17:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

If the date might be earlier than the date of the last change to the infobox, why have it there? The problem is not that the information might be out of date; but that it might be out of date, alongside a last updated" label which implies that it is not. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Am a little confused here. My impression of how the parameter is used is that when an editor updates some information in the infobox, he or she then also indicates a new date for the "last updated" parameter. So the "last updated" date should be the date of the last change to the infobox. Of course, it's possible that the editor may overlook updating the field, and we also cannot eliminate all possibility of someone mischievously putting down an incorrect date (though it's hard to see why anyone would want to do this – presumably there are more fun ways to vandalize articles), but I would imagine that this is a problem common to Wikipedia generally. Anyway, if you would prefer to remove the field I guess I don't have any strong objection to it. You should update {{Infobox Sportsperson}} too, which was based on this template. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 09:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

My concern isn't so much deliberate vandalism (though of course it's possible that that could happen), but the inadvertent failure to update or entry of the wrong date. I'll remove it - thank you. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Generic personal best

To make the template apply generically to all Track and field athletics athletes, the text "Personal best time(s)" has been changed to "Personal best(s)", which is about what the original template had before it was changed in September 2008. Not all events are measured in seconds. Most field events (shot put, discus, long jump, pole vault, etc.) are measured in length (distance or height). Truthanado (talk) 14:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that makes a lot of sense. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 17:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Asking again

What does "turned pro" mean? It makes little sense in the context of athletics. Punkmorten (talk) 20:36, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Why? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 20:54, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

This is old talk but the reason why it makes sense is the American system. The amateur track and field college/university period is an important stage for T&F athletes, this is when they compete at the NCAA events etc. Outside of that, I don't think it is in usage elsewhere. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits) 10:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that is sufficient justification for keeping the parameter in the template. In any case it is an optional parameter, so if it does not make any sense in the context of a particular athlete's sporting career it can simply be left out of the infobox. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 10:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

College, team

Can the parameter "team" be used for college too? For both athletes who are currently in college (ex. German Fernandez), and ones that have graduated and are now pro, (ex. Ryan Hall).

If so, this presents a problem, since Ryan Hall now runs for Team Running USA. I'm assuming that should be in team. Where would I put that he went to Stanford? Unless Team Running USA should be as a club. But anyhow, I think if possible, it would be best to add a new parameter for college/university. Thank You --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 14:49, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, what about a parameter for current residence? --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 14:55, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I suppose you mean a college or university sports team that the athlete belongs or belonged to? You could use the existing |team= parameter, e.g., "Stanford University Track and Field Team (2002–2004), Team Running USA (2005–present)". I am wondering if a parameter called |college= would be confusing, because editors might think it means the college(s) or university(-ies) that the athlete studied at. Personally, I'm not in favour of "residence" parameters. It's not really very crucial information, difficult to properly reference, and very likely to change from time to time. It will be a nuisance to keep up to date. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 14:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick and informative response.

About college, I think a new parameter for "college" would work better than putting in team for a few reasons:

1. First, regardless or not if they were a participant for the school's athletic team, where someone when to college is good, useful information that readers like to know. It is in the infobox person template

2. I would venture to guess that more than 90% of T&F athletes that studied at a specific college also participated for the school's track team as well, so I'm not agreeing with what you said about it being confusing because it may be where they studied. It's one and the same.

3. Conventional semantics (I'm American, not sure if it's different elsewhere, and if it is please let me know), but when you refer to someone's collegiate career, you don't say team, but college. For both current collegiate athletes and alumni. Team implies professional

For residence— I don't claim to be an expert but at least for the marathoners I'm familiar with, they don't move that often and it is not that difficult to track or update. Deena Kastor and Ryan Hall have been training in Mammoth Lakes for years, and hasn't Paula Radcliffe been in Monaco for a long time?, and for example when Kara Goucher moved to Oregon from Colorado, it was well publicized in running pubs.

Also, since we already have place of birth, it would seem to make sense to have residence, since pob could be rather trivia compared to residence. For example, Deena Kastor is from Massachusetts but I believe she moved to California at a very young age, and have lived there since.

--Omarcheeseboro (talk) 15:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, will add a |residence= parameter. As for the proposed |college= parameter, do you think it should refer to the college or university that an athlete studied at, or the college or university team that he or she competed for? I think we should be clear about this in the template documentation. An athlete may not have inevitably competed for the college or university at which he or she took a degree. For instance, he or she may have studied for a bachelor's degree at Stanford and a master's at Yale, but only competed for Stanford. Indicating "Stanford (2002–2005), Yale (2006)" would then be ambiguous. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 20:55, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again. I think in the documentation you can put that the college/university should be where the athlete competed .. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 21:16, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Have these parameters been added? Also, since there is a "now coaching" can there be one for who the athlete is currently being coached BY? I just added an infobox for Galen Rupp and it would be nice to add Alberto Salazar as his coach.--Omarcheeseboro (talk) 14:44, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I've now added the parameters. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 05:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 14:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)