Template talk:Infobox Sports league

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] How to use the template

[edit] Required parameters

  • sport = The sport played by the league. If possible include the wikilinks "[[]]".
  • founded = The year the sports league was founded.
  • country = The country/countries where the league is played.
  • champion = The current champion/s of the league.

[edit] Optional parameters

  • title = The name of the league; if this is omitted, the article title will be used. Use this iff the article title has a modifier (such as National Basketball League (Australia)).
  • current_season = The article name of the league's current season or competition in progress. Omit the wikilinks "[[]]".
  • logo = The filename of the logo, with the extension. Omit the [[Image: ]].
  • pixels = The width of the logo in pixels (default: 200px). Use this if the logo is either too small or too big.
  • caption = A caption for the image. Default is "<Sports league name> logo".
  • folded = The year the league folded.
  • teams= Number of teams in the league.
  • singles = In leagues featuring individual play (e.g., tennis, golf, gaming), the number of individual players.
  • ceo = The chief executive officer of the league
  • TV = The primary TV networks where the league's games/matches are aired. As much as possible, avoid local affiliates, use only the national broadcasters.
  • website = The official website address in the following format: [http://www.sportsleague.com SportsLeague.com].

[edit] Wikilinked years in sports

I wikilinked the years to the article on the year in sports. Leave me a message if there's any problems with this. --Jtalledo (talk) 22:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

This only becomes a problem when the founding "season" is spread over two calendar years, such as "1936-37". See recent edits to American Hockey League. Flibirigit 09:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
We'd have to follow the calendar year. You don't say the NBA was founded on 1946-47. --Howard the Duck 09:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Singles?

I have removed the "singles" parameter because it is showing up in every instance of this template. The parameter is not documented, and I'm not clear what it might mean. If you're going to add it back, please document it and make it optional. Rolando 23:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

After explanation by Valoem, added back as an optional parameter. Rolando 00:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Name

Can someone add in the option of writing in a different title, as opposed the name just being the article's name. For example, so Celtic League (rugby union) will say just Celtic League in the box, instead of having (rugby union)....? Narrasawa 05:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I've added the title parameter. --Howard the Duck 06:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Country / flag

What is the consensus for country/flag inclusion where there is a single team from another country (eg. a single Canadian teams in the NBA (United States competition), a single New Zealand teams in the NRL (Australian competition))? I would have thought that unless it was a mixed competition (eg. Super 14 has almost equal numbers of South African, Australian and New Zealand clubs) that the flag of the nation that hosts the league would be used (ie. US flag for NBA, Aus flag for NRL - but S.A., Aus and NZ flags for Super 14.). Looking through the articles it seems usage goes the other way. -- Chuq 09:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

For leagues where the teams had to go through a qualifying tournament in their respective countries (like in order to qualify in the UEFA Champions League, you'd have to finish first-fourth in the strongest countries), I'd recommend adding a flag; for those which do not (like the NBA and NHL), I'd recommend no flag to be displayed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Howard the Duck (talk • contribs) 23:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
The differences that I see:
In these cases, the Canadian/NZ/Singapore teams are "guest" teams, playing in another nations tournament
For International club football tournaments, there are a huge number of countries involved, and the countries can vary each year
  • Super 14 - 14 teams (4 Australian, 5 New Zealand, 5 South Africa) -> All three flags
Super 14 is run by SANZAR which is a joint Sth Africa/Aust/NZ organisation. No single country is dominant, but the teams involved are fixed from year to year.
I agree with you (Howard the Duck) regarding the NBA, NHL, NRL etc. but it appears to be against common usage - so I'd like to get other opinions. The particular article which interests me is A-League because Australia and New Zealand are in different football confederations so there has to be a distinction made. -- Chuq 01:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Are you referring to the "Countries" parameter or the "Champions" parameter? My previous statement was referring to the "Champions" parameter, as for the countries parameter, I suggest to include all countries except for leagues that are played in more than 10 countries. --Howard the Duck 02:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Ah, the "Countries" parameter - my Champions/Premiers comment below is unrelated! I wouldn't even use a flag for champions unless it was a competition between national teams. -- Chuq 02:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I'd support of adding flags to the champions if the league's members qualified through their national leagues (like the Champions League), while those which aren't, like the Aussie NBL (where the Slingers and NZ play) don't. --Howard the Duck 02:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I like having flags either way, because whether they're "guests or not, they're permanent. ¿ςפקιДИτς! ☺ ☻ 03:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Champions + Premiers

Another question! The A-League is unusual in that both the premiers (top of league table) and champions (winner of finals series) are equally important in measuring the success of teams. This prompted someone to ["subst" and modify the infobox http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=A-League&diff=93362989&oldid=93348243] as the template didn't have space for both. My opinion is that the infobox shouldn't have been got rid of - it should have been discussed here and adjusted to suit. Does anyone want to comment on this before I attempt it? -- Chuq 10:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

What I did with the Philippine Basketball Association article where 2 championships are disputed, the two championships would be displayed at the Champions perimeter, with the name of the championship enclosed in a parenthesis. --Howard the Duck 12:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal: new row listing the link to the current-ongoing season article

I was looking at the French Wikipedia version of the NHL article. On the last row of its infobox table, there is a link to the "Saison en cours" (Season in progress) article. I think a similar addition could be made on this Infobox sports league template, instead of using a combination of it with Template:Dab current or Template:Current sport-related. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

That's a good idea. --Howard the Duck 05:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Folded

I think it would be better if "Folded" was just under "Founded". // SMARTSKAFT | ¿ 21:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a good idea, but it'll emphasize that "folded" being last means it was the last thing the league did. Could work either way, though. --Howard the Duck 05:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CEO's

Would it be possible to add an optional parameter for the CEO? Bongomanrae 01:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

You can, but I think this infobox is having too many parameters already, although I'm not saying that's a bad thing, but... --Howard the Duck 09:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Current Champion

The wording of that has always bugged me considerably. Would there be any objection to having this changed to "Defending Champion", which I consider to be a more accurate statement? Resolute 14:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes go ahead. --Howard the Duck 14:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
The only thing would be defending, being an active word, implies that the next season is already taking place. In the off-season, the current champions are not yet defending. SeveroTC 16:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
True, but as far as North American sports go, at least, even in the offseason, the winning team is often referred to as the "defending champion Carolina Hurricanes..." My issue is that calling a team the current champ suggests that there is a continual challenge to the title. i.e.: a boxer is the current WBC champion, but the St. Louis Cardinals are the defending World Series champions. It is simply a matter of which semantics is preferable, I suppose. Resolute 17:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Isn't it once they've won the championship they're defending it already? --Howard the Duck 17:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I think Defending sounds much better, maybe there is a slight differences in dialect because to me (a native Estuary English speaker), to defend is to actively attempt to retain. Either way I think it's preferable because Current just sounds awkward :) -SeveroTC 17:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I made the change. Glad all three of us agree, heh. Resolute 18:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Apologies for having made the change before I looked here, but I have changed "defending" to "Most recent". In UK English, as Severo observes, a "defending" champion is one engaged in retaining that title. By this definition, Australia will not be defending the OFC Nations Cup (because of transfer to another jurisdiction), Floyd Landis will not be defending the Tour de France (through retirement) (admittedly not a league, but the principle applies), and Sunderland will not be defending the Coca-Cola Championship (by virtue of promotion). "Current" has already been argued against, and a rem note points out that it is not suitable for defunct leagues. I also rendered "champion" in the singular, which sits better with US English as well as being better suited to competitions where individuals participate. Kevin McE 20:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

This thought came to me some time after the discussion above. It just left me totally confused though! SeveroTC 23:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Why not just call it "champions"? --Howard the Duck 06:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

That would work for me. Resolute 18:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
No major objection here, but 2 points occur to me:
  • Use of singular allows for competitions for individuals, and sits better with US English
  • Is it appropriate to talk of the "Champion(s)" of a defunct competition? Kevin McE 19:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Maybe there should be more than one field, so wording can be more precise? SeveroTC 00:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, for current leagues...I prefer "Defending champion". For defunct leagues...I don't think we really need it to be honest...but I supposed "Last champion" would make sense. BsroiaadnTalk 00:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
The current markup for defunct leagues adds the word "last" before "champions." And this is a sports league infobox so more than likely the champions are teams. And some leagues do not allow their champions to defend their championships since they're promoted. --Howard the Duck 03:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be three options:

  1. Team or individual is defending or will defend their title
  2. Team or individual will not defend their title, as they have for whatever reason changed league
  3. League is defunct. Current markup alters text to read Last champions

How about just employing Champion (or Champions or Champion(s)) for the first two, leaving the markup for defunct leagues as it is? SeveroTC 12:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I have a question: on what page is this used for leagues with no teams (aka individuals)? That'll also leave number of teams quite useless. The current markup we have is fine, I just don't like "most current", I'd rather leave the simpler "Champions". --Howard the Duck 14:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Not exhaustive, but one I edit actually: UCI ProTour, where there are champions in individual, team and nation ranks and where, of those, individual is most important. SeveroTC 14:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC) --Ignore that then :-) SeveroTC 17:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
That makes it 3 champions so it is still in plural form. --Howard the Duck 14:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template talk:Infobox Sports season

I wonder if this is a good idea... --Howard the Duck 05:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Additional parameters

A-League
Current season or competition:
A-League 2007-08
Sport Association football
Founded 2004
Motto 90 minutes, 90 emotions
No. of teams 8
Country(ies) Flag of Australia Australia
Flag of New Zealand New Zealand
Most recent
champion(s)		 Champion: Melbourne (1st)
Premier: Melbourne (1st)
Most championship(s) Champions:
Sydney, Melbourne (1)
Premiers:
Adelaide, Melbourne (1)
TV partner(s) Fox Sports
Official website www.a-league.com.au
Related competitions AFC Champions League
Pan-Pacific Championship

Suggestions for additional parameters - inspired by the fact that A-League uses a manually generated infobox instead of this template, because the template doesn't accommodate all the variables.

  • Most championships/premierships: An entry for the team who has the most championships (or in the case of leagues such as the A-League, most championships and most premierships.
  • Related competitions - for football competitions, this would be continental club championships, for example
  • Also one that I have mentioned before - separate champions/premiers sections - this has been "worked-around" for now. See User:Chuq/test for an example. -- Chuq (talk) 06:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
OK you can go ahead with the first 2, the last one can be worked around, as you've said. For an example, see Philippine Basketball Association where there can be 2 champions in a season. Just u insert a <br> after each entry. --Howard the Duck 06:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I've added the first two (most_champs and related_comps) and placed a usage example on the right. They shouldn't cause any problems. It is fairly noticeable how the champions/premiers, while workable, doesn't look the best. -- Chuq (talk) 21:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Current season field and football image

I'm seeing complaints on non-football/soccer pages about the football image/clock icon in the "Current season" field. It's just odd to see a football on a page about cricket, baseball, or even Americn/Canadian football. I'd suggest either changing to a more generic image, or have a set of images that can be toggled by a set parameter. - BillCJ (talk) 03:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I've seen complaints about that image too. Let's see what shakes out here, and then we'll tackle that one. For the record, I disagree with incorporating the image into the infobox at all, since it's totally unrelated to the subject of the pages it is on, and is distracting unless the subject is football/soccer. The infobox should only have images related to the topic, such as league logos. I'm sorry I messed the discussion when it happened, but only two people discussed it here, with one comment each - that hardly a consensus makes. - BillCJ (talk) 04:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

How about totally ditching the image? --Howard the Duck 04:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think that would be the best solution. Sometimes I miss the easy answers! - BillCJ (talk) 04:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I really do not care, as long as it does its original purpose so that Wikipedians do not simultaneously use both this template and Template:Current sport-related. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm fine with deleting the image, or using the generic clock. Flibirigit (talk) 05:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah I am not even sure why we need an image. -Djsasso (talk) 19:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Current season or competition

"Current season or competition" is too long. How about "Current tournament"? --Howard the Duck 17:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

A regular season is not a tournament. Flibirigit (talk) 18:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Well it is in the broadest sense of the word. --Howard the Duck 03:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
True, but it isn't common usage. Perhaps a more general: "For current information see:"? Most article titles are descriptive, so that would flow well in most cases. Resolute 03:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
But it is still long since I'd want it to appear as a regular infobox entry. --Howard the Duck 03:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)