Template talk:Infobox racehorse: Difference between revisions

Horse racing Template‑class

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Horse racing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Horse racing 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.Horse racingWikipedia:WikiProject Horse racingTemplate:WikiProject Horse racingHorse racing articles Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Here is the regex I used to do most of the cleanup: s/{{Thoroughbred racehorse infobox\r\| ?Horse Name\s+= ?(.+)\r\| ?Image\s+= ?(.+)\r\| ?Sire\s+= ?(.+)\r\| ?Dam\s+= ?(.+)\r\| ?Damsire\s+= ?(.+)\r\| ?Sex\s+= ?(.+)\r\| ?Foaled\s+= ?(.+)\r\| ?Country\s+= ?(.+)\r\| ?Colour\s+= ?(.+)\r\| ?Breeder\s+= ?(.+)\r\| ?Owner\s+= ?(.+)\r\| ?Trainer\s+= ?(.+)\r\| ?Record\s+= ?(.+)\r\| ?Prizemoney\s+= ?(.+)\r\| ?Race\s+= ?(.+)\r\| ?Year/s\s+= ?(.+)\r\| ?Edit date\s+= ?(.+)\r}}/{{Thoroughbred racehorse infobox\r| name = \1\r| image = \2\r| caption = \r| sire = \3\r| dam = \4\r| damsire = \5\r| sex = \6\r| foaled = \7\r| country = \8\r| colour = \9\r| breeder = \10\r| owner = \11\r| trainer = \12\r| record = \13\r| prize money = \14\r| honors = \r| race = \15\r| year = \16\r| statistics date = \17\r}}/

I think that Handicappers request for assistance may have been slightly misinterpreted. The change has done away with the Major Wins heading and the race details that follow. Each infobox has now been stripped of much of the information that it was seeking to convey. I think that Handicapper was looking for an additional heading of "Honours" to be added underneath the Major wins section. (dark horse 06:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I did another version today that can be seen at Slew o'Gold. I'd still prefer to have the two bottom boxes without subtitles, just whatever text inserted fit automatically left or centered. However, I have no idea how to do that. Comments and improvements please before utilizing/replacing. Handicapper 19:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Theres an odd formatting bug visible at Sceptre (horse). This horse has 'race' set but not 'awards' or 'honors'. The template inserts an additional blank paragraph above the article. If you put anything in awards, or honors; or take away the race parameter, this misformatting goes away. I had a look at the templates (about which I know nothing - can you make your own to test them?) and the only thing that struck me as odd was this line:

#if:{{{race|}}}{{{awards|}}}{{{honours|}}}...

... every other occurence of pipe symbols is surrounded by <includeonly> tags, these 3 are left alone. Should they have them too? --Bazzargh (talk) 00:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed the above problem -- Zafonic (talk) 10:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any objection to removing this parameter? It seems unrealistic to expect users to update it manually whenever the page is revised. Until I edited them recently, several hundred pages were using templates that would display the current time the user is viewing the page as the time that the page was "last updated," which obviously doesn't make sense and only serves to falsely assure the user that the page is up-to-date when it actually may be missing recent information. I haven't noticed this parameter in any infobox except for those related to horse racing. Propaniac (talk) 14:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AS far as I'm concerned, the template is needed but not the time of day. You should not arbitrarily delete Templates in use for years without full discussion. In this case, go ahead a create a new Template sans Time of day and the old ones will be replaced over time. Thanx. Handicapper (talk) 15:15, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand you correctly, and I really want to make sure I do, you're saying that the infobox should continue to say "This infobox was last updated today" (displaying the date that the user is viewing the page), even if the infobox hasn't actually been updated for months; you just think that it shouldn't display the exact time that the user is viewing the page. I'm sorry, but I really don't see why displaying the date makes any more sense than displaying both the time and date. Either way, it's simply false information, because it's not actually showing the date that the infobox was last updated. It doesn't actually tell the user anything; it would be more beneficial to simply insert gobbledygook text, because at least then you wouldn't be lying to the user. Propaniac (talk) 16:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When used appropriately (such as on the tremendously widely deployed {{infobox football biography}}) this is a very useful maintenance parameter. If it's being misused with {{CURRENTDATE-plain}} or the like then that should be addressed directly by removing the incorrect template and educating those who are misusing it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do users actually habitually update the timestamp when they update the player's information? Make no mistake, I absolutely agree that it would be useful for the infobox to note when the information was last updated; I just haven't seen any page using this infobox where that actually happens. If users actually take the initiative to manually maintain the parameter on the football pages, consider me happily surprised. If anyone were able to link me to one or several articles using this infobox where that parameter is manually maintained, that would be even better.

One of my motivations for suggesting removal of the parameter was User:Handicapper's insistence (despite my efforts to convince him otherwise) on filling the parameter with the currentdate templates, which I consider wrong and damaging. Since I posted the suggestion here, Handicapper has (if I understand our User talk conversations correctly) recognized that the currentdate templates do not achieve the purpose he thought he did, and agreed that they should not be used. So as far as I know, the parameter will now just be left blank, making the need to remove it less dire in my view. I'd still rather remove it if there's no indication that it's being used correctly or ever will be, though. Propaniac (talk) 16:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't particularly mind its removal. I can vouch for its effectiveness in football biographies, but that's possibly as much due to the diligence of the editors in that part of the project as anything else. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I made some improvements to this template yesterday; {Handicapper reverted them, marking his revert as a minor edit - it was far from that. He says on my talk page:

I reversed your modifications […] as 1) I don't understand its purpose or value, and 2) out of courtesy, such a change should have first been put up for discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Thoroughbred racing.

Firstly the changes we documented in edit summaries and this template's own documentation (which was not reverted). Secondly, this is a wiki; there is no requirement to obtain prior permission to make edits; especially edits which implement metadata for which there as been consensus across Wikipedia for years.

To be clear: the edits cause the template to display, in the bottom line, the vernacular, or common, name ("Horse") and scientific name of the species; and to emit a microformat containing that data. This tells things like search engines and other tools that the page is about a Horse. For more on microformats, see the microformats project. Accordingly, I've restored the changes. I'm happy to explain further; that's what this page is for. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits