Template talk:Infobox cyclist/Archive 1

Archive 1

Ranks and placings

There are four entries for common rankings, namely ProTour (protourrank), Europe Tour (europetourrank), World Ranking (worldrank) and World Cup Rank (worldcuprank). I'm thinking these are just too difficult and too time consuming to maintain to be of any use. So, I'm going to remove them. Mk3severo 22:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Microformats

At WP:UF, they are making an effort to put microformats in infoboxes so that software can easily (i.e. automatically) extract information, which utilises hCard. Wikipedia:WikiProject Microformats/hcard details much of the work so far. We would need to copy some of the changes (they're only minor) to the template here.

I envisage change of usage to use these standards to be quite small. The only things we would need to look at is handling birth and death dates of the deceased. The addition of a gender field may also be needed - although we would not need to display this field.

Severo^TC 08:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Height and weight templates

{{Height}} and {{Weight}} are available for standard formatting of height and weight. Would their use be preferred over manual entries? I think it would help standardise many boxes and provide a wider coverage as it uses both imperial and metric units, whilst maintaining MOS requirements by putting the main one for the subject first. Severo^TC 23:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I've started using them, but there still seems to be a fair amount of debate whether they are entirely useful or not. Many infoboxes do not yet have a standard... Severo^TC 16:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Amateur/professional teams

I'm thinking Amateur teams is a bit of a useless field. Information here is a)scarce and b)doesn't matter. I can't see many situations where this would be interesting enough information to warrant being in the infobox. Can anyone think of any uses where it is useful?

Also, if the section were to be removed, should Professional teams be renamed, perhaps to Senior teams? Severo^TC 16:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I restored the amateur sections since I am using it for the BMX discipline of cycling. I do think it is necessary to have an amateur section to give a fuller history of the racer's background. If that option is removed I will be prevented from doing so. If a editor think such information is extraneous then he has the option of just leaving the information out and it would not affect the look of the box one bit, so removing the amateur section is unnecessary for those who feel that that info is unnecessary. Just leave the field blank if you do. As for renaming the professional box again why? They are professionals and they are on professional teams. What does the term "Senior Teams" tell you? Nothing. If it is just a euphemism for "professional" then why bother? Hunter2005 23:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC) & Hunter2005 04:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds fair enough, and the whole point of {{Cyclist infobox}} is to cover all disciplines the UCI cover. I may change the guidance notes to actually ask if the amateur teams are notable enough to the article to be given prime placing in the infobox. Regards, Severo^TC 13:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikilinks within the infobox

I would like to question the logic behind the statement "Linking of other entries is to be discouraged as most of these links will present themselves in the article's introduction; linking them in the infobox adds clutter and inhibits the speedy retrieval of facts."
In particular, I am advocating the wikilinking of a rider's previous teams and major wins. While his current team and most-recent or most-major win are likely to be mentioned in the article's introduction, former teams and less-recent wins would only occur farther down. The case can be made that it does add clutter; however, this would apply to all infoboxes for athletes, and more broadly to all infoboxes, and no such precedent exists - compare Barry Bonds, Michael Schumacher, Venus Williams, CNN, USS Alaska (SSBN-732). Not everyone who views a cyclist's page will automatically know what Dauphiné Libéré is, but they might be curious, and it would be just fantastically convenient for it to be wikilinked in the infobox.
I am also mystified by the clause "inhibits the speedy retrieval of facts" because 1) no it doesn't, and 2) how could wikilinking inhibit anything except maybe the selectability of wikilinked text. Opinions? eae 22:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Bit lat of a reply, sorry about that must have missed your comment. I basically copied the guidelines from {{Infobox Football biography}}, although it's not really enforced in that infobox. I would maintain that the links should almost always be duplicates of what is in the lead: we should be working to ensure that too much detail is not put in the infobox, but it is an instantaneous guide of the cyclist, nationality, era, what they rode on and how good they were. I'm not entirely sure what is meant by "inhibits the speedy retrieval of facts" either, I wrote all the code for the infobox and copied the guidelines almost as an afterthought. I'll remove this idea, but it doesn't detract from the argument that links should be in the intro, and we don't want to overlink. Regards, Severo^TC 23:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Flags

Current fashion is not to have flags in infoboxes. Here, we have a nationality field which typically used a flag, which is being replaced by some editors to just say the country name. This brings up the question as to whether its better to have a nationality field or a place of birth field, or both (for when nationality is not the same as place of birth). Thoughts? Severo^TC 23:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

If we use nationality it will lead to controversy regarding what nationality means(flemish/belgian/walloon, catalan/spanish, etc). 'Country' seems more appropriate. Looking at other sport template the best option seems to be the infobox displaying 'Place of Birth'/'Place of Death'. Something like this:
| country =
| dateofbirth =
| cityofbirth =
| countryofbirth =
| dateofdeath =
| cityofdeath =
| countryofdeath =
Regards--Drunt (talk) 10:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that with the addition of the Medal Templates section to the infobox, which includes the "nation" competed for when each medal was won diminishes the need to have a "nationality" field. I think we should now replace it with place of birth, for example Paris, France. Probably some work to do to understand how this would work as per the style guide, i.e. name of country if the country has changed name (Kieve, USSR?). Severo^TC 14:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Place of birth/death

Shouldn't the infobox at least have fields for the places of birth and death? IMHO, that would be a reasonable addition. — Dale Arnett (talk) 06:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Use of icons

I have posted the following message at the WikiProject Cycling talk page:

Infoboxes are repeatedly cropping up with jersey icons. I have been ignoring them in most circumstances although correcting/deleting ones where the jersey colour is wrong. I have been reading WP:ICONDECORATION and can't see how they offer either a navigational or layout function beyond any aesthetic value, so I think as a rule we should not use jersey icons within infoboxes. Whilst I'm on the subject on infoboxes, WP:MOSFLAG says that as a rule, flags should not be used to identify nationality in an infobox. I propose changing the use of the "Country" field in the infobox to a "Place of birth" (and also add a "Place of death" for consistency). If medals are won while representing a cycling nation, the flag would still be displayed as part of the medal table, whether that is integrated into the infobox or not. I bring these to your attention so we can find consensus before I do any action en masse.

Please post any comments there to keep everything in one place :) Severo^TC 21:51, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Y Done finally. Severo^TC 11:00, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Template changes

As per the suggestions above, I think we should replace country with place of birth and place of death. Severo^TC 18:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't see this discussion at the time: I suspect few people have this on their watchlist, so I'll refer WT:CYC to this discussion.

Because, for some riders, sporting nationality is not the same as the country of their birth, country is relevant for the infobox, although we might prefer to only show this where it is different. There should be no debate as to nationality: Flemish/Walloon/Basque/Manx are not nationalities recognised by the UCI. I agree that the undecorated name of the country is more apt than flag. Although the country field still works, I would propose that it regain approval. Kevin McE (talk) 16:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I understand your thoughts, and I think it is useful to show UCI sporting nationalities. But I also think we should not just call it "country", because this might give the wrong impression, and the casual editor may want to give Cavendish the Manx nationality. We should make it clear that it is the nationality as defined by UCI (or maybe FICP in some older cases). For cyclists that changed UCI nationality, we should give all UCI nationalities including years, as for example is done for Andrei Tchmil (in the country-parameter).

Furthermore, it would be easier for the progress if the country-parameter stays deprecated and a new parameter is used for this, simply because this makes it easier for me to systematically go through all the articles until there is no country-parameter left. For the moment, I added the uciregistration-parameter to the articles that I updated, that gives the UCI nationality. If we want to show the UCI nationality, we should think how to call that parameter, and how to show it in the infobox. Summarized:

Do we want to show UCI nationality?

• Yes, I would even say in all cases. If we would only show it in cases where it is different from the birth country, if you would see an infobox without the UCI nationality, it is not clear if it is the same as the birth country of simply not given. EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs)

How should this parameter be named?

• ucinationality (I abandoned my idea of yesterday, "uciregistration") EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs)

How should it be shown in the infobox?

• No good ideas on that yet.--EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 07:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm well aware that few people follow this page and I have cross-posted discussions (such as the more recent one below) at WT:CYC (which is well enough followed). These are my somewhat rambling thoughts, for which I apologise but I seem unable to write with structure today. UCI-nationality is better than the bland nationality field (which was taken to mean Isle of Man, Basque Country etc even if someone had only represented this level once in their careers) but I'd still question whether it was needed: nationality (part of which is defined by the UCI) is defined in the first line of nearly every biography already. My first question would be for whom would we want to display a UCI nationality in the infobox? My answer would be - at the maximum - only riders who have competed for a country at Elite/U23 level. For riders who have won a medal (i.e. generally the more important ones), we already display the nationality through the Medal Templates set. For riders who have not competed for their country it is not appropriate to highlight which national cycling federation issues their licence through the infobox. Furthermore, for riders who have not competed for their country, they are still at some liberty to change, so the UCI nationality is not so important anyway. Then we should consider whether riders who were born in another country due to their parents travelling/living for a short time in another country (say Bradley Wiggins) should be considered different to riders who changed their nationality for other reasons (say László Bodrogi). Any way which we look at the issue, Help:Infobox lists three criteria for infobox fields: comparability, conciseness and material relevance to subject. Obviously it's concise, but is it comparable or materially relevant? If we only include it where riders where born in another country, then it's not really comparable (but then if we were to include it on every biography it is emphasising nationality without reason). Another option would be to include a field for national team representation. Severo^TC 08:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I had interpreted replacement of nationality by birthplace as a reluctance in this project to show nationality. That's the only reason I was suggesting limiting it to those who ride for somewhere other than their place of birth; I'm in favour of making it universal.

Do we need to specify this as UCI nationality? I spend a lot of time on football (soccer) articles, which have far more casual editors and many more nationalities involved, and addition of sub-national entities is very rarely an issue: the idea that nationality means the nation they could represent seems widely accepted there. On those football articles there are many arguments about the appropriate nationality of players, because there is no authoritative declaration of it for the vast majority of players who have not appeared internationally: for cyclists there is no such issue as every registered rider is given a nationality by UCI. So I would suggest that we can simply call the field "nationality": UCI will only allow registration to a nationality that someone has a right to claim: Bradley Wiggins probably could claim Belgian registration by virtue of place of birth, but he can't choose to ride for China because it would go well with his hair. (Are we discussing the field name or the display here? No problem with field name as ucinationality or uciregistration)

Are we agreed that countries should display without flags? I would suggest that they are purely decorative, and add nothing to the readers' knowledge or understanding.

The very small proportion of road cyclists who have medal boxes means that duplication is a very minor issue.

Previous nationalities? I would say not, because again it would be unclear as to whether in the case of a rider where there is no previous nationality whether this is omission or only having had one nationality, but also because national registration is a current reality (or reality at time of retirement), and that is what seems suitable for an infobox. We would have to find evidence as to whether Chris Froome ever was Kenyan or South African, and make it verifiable. The small propoportion of riders who have changed registration can have it explained in the text. I could live with Bodrogi's infobox saying Nationality French (formerly Hungarian), but nationality 1, Nationality 2 etc is a nono as far as I'm concerned.

Severo questions material relevance for riders who have not been in a national team. This would presumably mean that we would note the nationality of riders in the national squads that take part in many 2.2 races, but not those who ride for the major teams: this seems counterintuitive. Rider nationality is included in squad list articles, in most results sheets, on rider fact files on teams' websites, is very frequently included in journalistic reports: it seems very much apposite to include it in a rider's infobox.

Nation or Nationality? Demonym or country name? (So does Allan Davis' infobox say Country Australia or Nationality Australian?) How should we display it? Kevin McE (talk) 10:02, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I do indeed retain reluctance to show nationality in the infobox: in 90% of riders it doesn't really matter what the code of their licence is so it elevates what is essentially a technical designation into a major point and as stated previously it is always in the first line of biographies anyway. If you don't think casual editors would try to introduce subnational nationalities, I invite you to take a look through Category:British cyclists. The arguments editors use to introduce the subnational nationalities is that the athletes compete for these nations at the Commonwealth Games (once in four years if they're lucky) which is arguably a sporting nationality. I think you would also need to note previous nationalities to not ignore the many cyclists this applies to who have retired and to explain why someone like Bodrogi won the Hungarian championships even though he is a French rider (under the current set-up there is no anomaly in the infobox, introducing a nationality field introduces such anomalies). Also, why is a rider's current nationality more important than their previous one? My point about national teams applies to World Championships, Olympic Games and World Cups across all the disciplines of cycling. I am glad this is finally receiving attention, although I am somewhat disillusioned this didn't happen at the design stage. Severo^TC 10:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

That would require researching previous World Championship and Olympic squads, and it would not be clear to readers why some riders have nationalities are recorded and others not. Cycling has an advantage over other sports in that everyone has a verifiabe nationality, not only those who have been in a representational team. Using UCInationality as the field name for editors to see should prevent subnational affiliation being posted, but it doesn't have to be displayed as such. "Why is a rider's current nationality more important than their previous one?": Rankings/results listings/World Championship or Olympic selection/National Championship eligibility... I have already said that those who have switched nation should have this explained in the prose: the infobox is not the place for how or why, but is a quick-view fact file, and nationality is included for cyclists on every other summary fact file that I have ever seen. Kevin McE (talk) 12:47, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I checked what other websites do (because I think wikipedia should not invent standards but follow them) for the example of László Bodrogi: cyclingnews shows him as Hungarian, cyclingarchives shows him as Hungarian until 2008 and French from 2009, and eurosport as French. Obviously this didn't help ;)

In my opinion we either show all nationalities including years, just as the cyclingarchives example, or no nationalities at all. Only the most recent nationality is recentism. --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 14:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 161.46.219.152, 14 September 2010

{{edit protected}}

Discipline: climbing specialist.

161.46.219.152 (talk) 18:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Updated date

Why would there need to be an updated date in the infobox? With the number of conscientious Wikipedia users, this information is going to remain pretty well up to date. And I haven't seen it in other infoboxes. I would suggest removing it. Civil Engineer III 13:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I think if there were a number of conscientious Wikipedians then there may be a case for this, however, as the number of people that contribute to cycling biography articles is fairly limited, infoboxes can go without updates for a while, and indeed many biographical articles don't even have infoboxes yet. The idea was taken from other sports/people infoboxes - the direct inspiration at the time was Template:Infobox Tennis player. A quick check also reveals Template:Infobox Football biography, Template:Infobox afl player, Template:Infobox alpine ski racer, Template:Infobox athlete biography, Template:Infobox Cricketer, Template:Infobox Cricketer (Career), Template:Infobox NBL player, Template:Infobox rugby league biography and Template:Infobox volleyball player all also have some kind updated or stats-updated fields. Personally I don't see the harm in notifying other editors as well as readers of when someone last edited the infobox. Mk3severo 13:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• Incase you didn't see my response to your question where you posted it, I will supply the response here as well as there:

Hello Severo and thanks for the compliments. Warwick Stevenson is not the only BMX racer I am writing up as you can tell from the BMX racing page in the "Legendary BMX racers" section. I was a BMX racer from 1982 to 1989 (officially retired in 1992) and I have a great many of the BMX magazines of the 1980's, a lot of the 1970's (which explains some of the gaps in the data from that era) and a few of the 1990-2000's (like I said I retired in 1989 so I only have a few BMX mags post 1992 (which I have even larger gaps in the data), but I think ebay can rectify that. :-) As to the info boxes I find them quite adequate for BMX. Any other details I can provide in the body of the article. The Info box is only for basic knowledge anyway. No need for the racer's exact hometown to be listed in the box for instance, just the nationality. If I think of anything I will let you know, but so far it is okay as it is. Hunter2005 10:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• • • Thinking back to how this updated date works, I'm not so sure there's a need for it now, and it doesn't look good when the medal templates are included also. As such, I plan to remove it. Any objections? Severo^TC 18:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
      • I didn't see this since I don't frequent the template pages but I didn't see the need to remove it. It is a good way to remind anyone to update the box if hadn't been in a while. Still, it is not that important so... On the other hand you should give an example of template usage with the "new" flip down medal section of the infobox. And I do like the flip down "medal record" section. One thing I think should remain is the "major win" field. Hunter2005 (talk) 23:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
        • I've put it back in, but underneath the medal templates section. I agree that the major wins should remain, since medals aren't suitable for everyone. Severo^TC 13:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The update date is not working; and editorial information that the non-editor readers has no use for.
Why is it not working, simple, I have seen infoboxes which were clearly updated as they listed 2008 dates; while the update date was somewhere midst 2007. Without a "bot-support" crawling through all the cycle templates checking (and correcnting!!!) whether the update dates are consistently updated this field is unacceptable increasing maintenance, causing confusion, and likely to communicate false information. Arnoutf (talk) 15:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The update-date should be removed. Arcandam (talk) 15:03, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Template changes

I've changed the infobox to utilise {{infobox}} which should make editing this infobox easier in future. It got me thinking about some changes we might like to make:

First is whether the {{{updated}}} field should remain. This one has been looked over before and I think there are arguments each way.

Second is how to reform the teams fields to make it more accessible. Using a <br /> delimited is not the easiest thing to do, and other infoboxes have dropped this style. I think there are two options we could take: first, we could make fields available for each line, {{{team1years}}}/{{{team1name}}}, {{{team2years}}}/{{{team2name}}} and so on. The second option would be to use a subsidiary template for each team, with such fields as {{template name|year joined|year left|team name}}. With the second one, the Category:Cycling team data system could be utilised based upon team name (if it matched an existing template) and year joined (with the availability to override this). I am also in favour of merging the Amateur teams and Professional teams fields under something simply like Team history - I don't think amateur teams should often be given such exposure at the top of a biography (unless they were mportant, where they would be included under Team history anyway).

If anyone is reading this let me know your thoughts! Severo^TC 11:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Removing the update-field was a good idea 4 or 5 years ago, and it still is. Arcandam (talk) 08:19, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Bicycle brand

Hello, I think it would be nice to add the rider's (current) bicycle brand in the infobox. Would that be a possibility? Kind regards, Sander.v.Ginkel (talk) 12:58, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Choice of bike is at the discretion of the team, not the rider, so I would be opposed. Kevin McE (talk) 19:43, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Kevin McE. Severo^TC 21:39, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I understand and agree. Good argument. Thanks for your responses. Sander.v.Ginkel (talk) 22:14, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

layout problem with watching a page with this template in magnified

hello. I often have my browser displaying pages at 150%, and then those fields in the template that have ranges of years get broken - the years (e.g. 2000 - 2004) are broken into two lines, but the corresponding entries do not react to this. As a result it looks like Lance Armstrong was in the Astana Team in 2004, etc.
Should someone want to do something about this : I don't know how they did it (template stuff is above me), but the template in the German Wikipedia does not have this problem, the years and the corresponding entries are always in the correct line there, no matter what zoom level it is displayed at. That template can be seen here de:template: Infobox Radsportler. ok, bye Pardon my German (Fiiiisch!) (talk) 10:59, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for this. Yes, this is a problem which can be resolved. At the moment we basically have two lists which we match up line-by-line, but really we should move to a system of each team and year having a separate field, which would result in a table and so eliminate this problem (like we can see in {{Infobox football biography}}). If there is a will for me to do so, I can propose what I would make in these changes and start with it. Severo^TC 11:52, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I checked the text zoom in Firefox, and it doesn't have this problem, since the {{nowrap}} template forces the information to stay on one line. however, I do agree with the change to a years1, team1 style per {{Infobox football biography}}, since that will improve accessibility. you can see the problem if you try to cut-and-paste the data from the infobox (the years and teams don't line up). I added support for the better format. we can ask a bot to convert the transclusions. a similar bot was dispatched for {{infobox football biography}}. Frietjes (talk) 15:47, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

So, do we have consensus for moving to the model as used by {{Infobox football biography}} ({{{years1}}}/{{{teams1}}} etc)? I'd also propose to do at the same time replacing the amateur/professional titles with Team history (with the guideline that only UCI-registered teams or equivalent should be listed). Finally I propose removing the updated field. If a bot could do this, it would be great as we now have over 3600 transclusions. If not, I can do it by hand or using AWB but not for a while as I will take a wikibreak soon and I don't stand a chance of doing it before then. Severo^TC 22:34, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Template changes

Hi all, I am currently going through many cyclists changing their category from Category:Fooian cyclists to Category:Fooian (fe)male cyclists and at the same time I am tidying instances of this template, for example checking that the birth_place field contains a place name rather than a flagicon. It has also got me thinking to make some updates to the template and usage of the template when I have finished this task. These will be:

• removing the updated field
• changing the Amateur teams and Professional teams fields to a single Senior teams set-up for the revised years1/team1 fields as above
• putting in a tracking category to identify uses of the Amateur teams field to make editorial decisions on depreciating this field (some will be junior teams that can be deleted but some will be second division senior teams which should stay)
• requesting a bot for full roll out of the revised years1/team1 set-up (and other general fixes including removal of all deprecated fields).

I anticipate to be in a position to start this in 2-6 weeks when I have completed the Category:Fooian cyclists to Category:Fooian (fe)male cyclists changes (of which I am currently about two-thirds of the way through but with the big categories of Belgium, France and Italy to come). Severo (talk) 00:32, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

"Infobox last updated" notice

I think we should remove the "Infobox last updated" notice from this template for the following reasons:

• It's anachronistic. Other infoboxes do not have such notices.
• Many readers will not know what an "infobox" is and may be confused by the notice.
• It requires editors to actually update the date, and thus may not be accurate in many cases. This also makes the template more complicated to use.

Kaldari (talk) 19:58, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

It's well used in {{Infobox football biography}}, and I see IPs and new users put in the time and date after every appearance. I definitely think it's pointless for retired or deceased riders as it's purpose is for to help uses know if it's update for a riders latest major result or medal. For example, Patrick Sercu has "Infobox last updated on 19 June 2007". I think that looks bad. So at the very least we need a bot to run through Category:Dead people and remove the parameter. I wouldn't be against the total removal. BaldBoris 15:11, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

The way the parameters are used at {{Infobox football biography}} is a bit different. It basically says that a specific set of information is current as of a particular date, rather than just saying the infobox was updated. Also it seems more useful for football players as their stats may change on a daily (or hourly) basis, while stats for cyclists don't change as often. Kaldari (talk) 18:20, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

I fully agree that the 'last updated date' should not be shown in articles. If somebody would like to argue that the date should be kept as a note on the edit page, I could live with that. --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 10:49, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

As I put it in in the first place many years ago - yes it should go for the above reasons. In fact I've not used it in articles for a while. Severo (talk) 22:16, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

@Kaldari: In the edit summary for the doc you say you were removing it "to match template", but nothing has changed in the template. Also, what's the going to happen to the redundant parameter left in the articles, get a bot to remove it? BaldBoris 12:58, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

@BaldBoris: Somehow forgot to save my edit to the template :) Should be fixed now. I'll add a tracking category for a bot to use. Kaldari (talk) 19:48, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

@Kaldari: Shall we request a bot to run through and remove it then? BaldBoris 18:58, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

uciregistration parameter

I have added Category:Pages using infobox cyclist with uciregistration parameter to find the roughly 70-75 pages using this parameter, which is not currently supported by the infobox. should we add it to the infobox, or have it removed from the articles? Frietjes (talk) 00:16, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I think it should be removed as I'm not aware of an equivalent used for the other sportsperson infoboxes. I can imagine some serious edit warring if it was included. BaldBoris 20:11, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Update: Remove per the 6-year-old discussion above. BaldBoris 20:17, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Remove. In that discussion above, it looks like I am the one that proposed this parameter, in an attempt to have something less problematic than "country". I now think it is one of my less successfull ideas. --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 09:51, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

in that case, please feel free to help removing the parameter from the articles in Category:Pages using infobox cyclist with uciregistration parameter. Frietjes (talk) 14:51, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

OK I'll remove it. Frietjes, can you please look into why Sondre Holst Enger is showing the medals when it has |show-medals=no? BaldBoris 17:55, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

fixed. the way {{infobox medal templates}} works is that any non-blank value = yes, and blank = no. I added {{yesno}} here so "no" works as well. Frietjes (talk) 13:27, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Weight field

I think the weight field of this template should be removed. A person's weight is extremely trivial, changes all the time, and is very unlikely to be accurately reported. Any number that might appear in the field is essentially meaningless. 2.28.152.23 (talk) 09:07, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I have replied to [1] about my thoughts on that - and I should think the weight field should be removed in the rugby players' infoboxes as well. Thanks - Iggy (talk) 15:49, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Cycling not mentioned

I think the most important parameter is missing: "Sport = cycling". Otherwise it looks confusing. --Pelmeen10 (talk) 16:24, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

template errors

Category:Pages using infobox cyclist with unknown parameters currently contains three articles that don't say what is wrong in preview mode. I looked into this once before and believe it has something to do with the pro/amateur/manager years fields. Frietjes, can you take a look? MB 18:10, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

User:MB the tracking checks for <br /> in the years/teams. in most cases, this improper use of fields. for example Nicky Degrendele should be using |proyears2= and |proteam2= instead of trying to wedge both years into one field. the other ones are probably okay, unless we have more details concerning which teams correspond to which years. Frietjes (talk) 18:21, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Frietjes, got it. I fixed Nicky Degrendele, and see nothing can be done with Pat McQuaid without more detail. With José Segú, there are just multiple teams in some years. I could remove the <br> but the article looks better the way it is. So agree probably best to just leave as is.

But to avoid future confusion (and having to read the template source to figure these out), wouldn't it make sense to dump these into Category:Pages using infobox cyclist with multiple entries in single field MB 18:43, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

User:MB, yes, of course. now created. Frietjes (talk) 19:09, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

as a "module" to Infobox person

How can this template be used as a "module" in {{Infobox person}}, see also Category:Biographical templates usable as a module. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:29, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

MisterBee1966, which article? Frietjes (talk) 17:25, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Frietjes see Fritz Fliegel, I tried to embed "Infobox cyclist" but couldn't get it to work. I "abused" {{Infobox racing driver}} instead. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:29, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

MisterBee1966, {{infobox sportsperson}} may have been more appropriate, but embedding this infobox should work now. Frietjes (talk) 18:50, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:51, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 15 January 2019

Now that the uciregistration parameter has been scrubbed from all cyclist articles, its use does not need to be tracked separately; accordingly, please edit the "check for unknown parameters' code at the bottom to remove:

| uciregistration

and

{{#if:{{{uciregistration|}}}|[[Category:Pages using infobox cyclist with uciregistration parameter]]}}

Thanks! UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:47, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

sure. Frietjes (talk) 17:58, 15 January 2019 (UTC)