This template is within the scope of WikiProject Infoboxes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Infoboxes on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InfoboxesWikipedia:WikiProject InfoboxesTemplate:WikiProject InfoboxesInfoboxes articles
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Sports, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sport-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SportsWikipedia:WikiProject SportsTemplate:WikiProject Sportssports articles
Assess : newly added and existing articles, maybe nominate some good B-class articles for GA; independently assess some as A-class, regardless of GA status.
Cleanup : * Sport governing body (this should-be-major article is in a shameful state) * Field hockey (History section needs sources and accurate information - very vague at the moment.) * Standardize Category:American college sports infobox templates to use same font size and spacing. * Sport in the United Kingdom - the Popularity section is incorrect and unsourced. Reliable data is required.
* Fix project template and/or "to do list" Current version causes tables of content to be hidden unless/until reader chooses "show."
I notice that anonymour user(s) want to delink the founded field from XXXX in sports to no preformned linkage. Although I understand that some users feel that a year should not link to XXXX in sports, but rather XXXX season in specific sport, but changes to such a highly-used template should be listed here first. Any discussion? Flibirigit (talk) 22:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to propose to add a parser function that allows an editor to chose whether they want a date to link to "XXXX in sports" or to a season article such as "1977-78 XXX season". Any comments? Flibirigit (talk) 00:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
@Frietjes: I don't know who else to ask, so I simply would like to know if you could add a parameter called former/old names? I would like to add that info in the infobox of an article about a sports club which I created. Thanks in advance. Akocsg (talk) 15:03, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I know we have owner but if a team has 4 owners it should say owners, not owner. We have fields for plural versions of other fields already so why can't we have one for owner? Also I was told that it would be easier to ask someone to make a new field than to try to change the name of the field specifically on one page. For technical director, one of the owners of the team I'm editing's page told me to add this so I would really appreciate if it was added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tylermachanic (talk • contribs) 16:30, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, first off, if you're being paid or otherwise connected to a company that you're writing for, you need to disclose that on your userpage - see WP:PAID. Second off, fair point with "owners", I've added in a plurality option. Third, the template already has |coach_label= and |coach= as catch-all terms for extra params, and I think you should gain a consensus for adding a new term. Primefac (talk) 16:49, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I just changed my user page to include this. It's unpaid btw. Do you know if there are any other catch-all fields with a label because coach is already being used on the page I'm editing. Also thank you for adding the plurality option but I'm not quite sure how to change it on the page. Could you please tell me how? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tylermachanic (talk • contribs) 17:32, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, let's back up a second. First, what is a "technical director", and second, why is it important to include them in the template? These are questions that should probably be answered before we just start chucking parameters in there. These are legitimate questions, for what it's worth. Primefac (talk) 19:59, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not 100% sure what a technical director does but I'm guessing it means he's either in charge of running the website or maybe he is the announcer at games. I've decided to just include it in the history section instead of adding it to the template. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tylermachanic (talk • contribs) 20:13, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm wondering why this template lists partners, and maybe main sponsor also, at all?
Seems to me this is basically exclusively used for advertising via wikipedia and serves no purpose of offering any meaningful info on the article items themselves.ShadessKB (talk) 13:20, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any reason why the current season parameter is tucked in with all of the other parameters instead of as a subheading like most other sports team infoboxes? JTP(talk • contribs)20:18, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would think that one would assume that a national team would use their country's flag as their "logo". What else would be used? Primefac (talk) 12:02, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the same thing, but when I took a look at some of the articles, I found the use of a wide (sometimes the full-width of the infobox) national flag coming off as a bit garish and overbearing (e.g., United States national speedway team). When it is as wide as it is for the articles about the national flags, it just seems to me to be too much. The national team articles are not about the flags, but the teams.
Most of the templates used by national team articles offer |logo= or |Badge= instead of the generic |image= and are silent on guidance for using or not using flags. Logos generally have favorable aspect ratios so as not to be as overbearing as a flag (imo), but I suppose that could be used in an overbearing manner, too. Use of the team logo should be preferred over the use of a flag. If no logo is available, consider not using any image at all. If you are going to use a flag, then smaller flag images like that used at A1 Team USA or the use of a flag icon in |name= like the example shown at ((Infobox national softball team)) seem more advisable to me than a full-width national flag. But reasonable minds may differ.