Jump to content

Module talk:Sports table/January 2023 RFC

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Module talk:Sports table
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by AFC Vixen (talk | contribs) at 14:16, 30 December 2022 (→Sports table module: Added info). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
WikiProject iconRugby union Template‑class
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Rugby union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of rugby union 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.Rugby unionWikipedia:WikiProject Rugby unionTemplate:WikiProject Rugby unionrugby union
TemplateThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Sports table module

@FrenchFootball: Please understand that Module:Sports table is an all-purpose table for the majority of sports, and not just association football. I put in a lot of effort to adapt Module:Sports table/Custom to suit the style of Top 14, with its bonus points counting to the sum of points as well, among other things. — AFC Vixen 🦊 (talk) 18:00, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mikey'Da'Man, Archangel: Can you please explain what your "actual update" is all about? — AFC Vixen 🦊 (talk) 01:42, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To include tries and summaries of bonus points. This style of table is literally found in every European league. There is no reason for this to change for this one. Mikey'Da'Man, Archangel (talk) 01:53, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mikey'Da'Man, Archangel: Arguing that the current table should stay because it is in other articles is an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument that lacks an opinion as to why you think the current table is better than Module:Sports table. The sports table module is used very widely across Wikipedia, because its ability to automate table positions and sums of points makes it significantly easier for people to edit than having to manually add, change, and/or rearrange every single point of data into the table.
If you wanted the bonus points to be resolved into try and losing bonuses, and for tries to be included as well, then I can easily add those into the table's code. However, a WP:RELIABLE source would need to be found to verify these. The official Top 14 table does not document tries and only documents the total bonus points. The current source used in the table says all teams have 0 tries and 0 try bonuses... so it is clearly inaccurate. Le Figaro does not record tries or a breakdown of bonus points, and neither does the BBC or Sky Sports. Do you have a reliable source for these statistics that we could use? — AFC Vixen 🦊 (talk) 05:41, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mikey'Da'Man, Archangel: You still have not answered my inquiries, especially about your opinion as to why the current table is better than Module:Sports table, and about the inaccurate, unreliable source currently being used. Communication is required. Between the lack of communication and your rather condescending edit summary, I am starting to reconsider my presumption of good faith. — AFC Vixen 🦊 (talk) 23:02, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mikey'Da'Man, Archangel: Once again requesting a response to my concerns. — AFC Vixen 🦊 (talk) 19:50, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mikey'Da'Man, Archangel: I've asked twice that you please discuss this matter. I'm going to go ahead and restore my changes. If you revert without responding here, then I'm going to have to file a complaint against you at ANI for disruptive editing by reverting without discussing. — AFC Vixen 🦊 15:41, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For the last time. This is not broken, therefore it does NOT need fixing. Therefore it will NOT be fixed. Mikey'Da'Man, Archangel (talk) 16:39, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like it's begging for an RFC where the arguments for and against are put up for comment and discussion from all users. Otherwise there's a lot of behavior here that veers in to WP:OWN territory. Mikey, AFC, would you two mind putting together position statements in the next day or two and we can run an RFC? --WhoIs 127.0.0.1 ping/loopback 13:28, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am hoping that we can immediately, without discussion, remove the "tries for" and "tries against" columns, and merge the "try bonus" and "losing bonus" columns into a simple "bonus" column. The current source is clearly unreliable as three of these columns are literally "0"s across the rows. This is objectively a failed verification. No reliable source I have seen (the official table, Le Figaro, BBC, Sky Sports) even has these numbers.

Otherwise, as a subjective argument for replacing the entire table instead of just these columns, I make three points.

  • Module:Sports table offers features such as automated sums and error messages that appear in the preview when errors occur. These are not available with a simple wikitext-based table, and make editing significantly easier and less-worry free.
  • The wikitext-based table currently used is more cumbersome in the way it displays information for the reader, such as an entire key in the footer that could instead be more conveniently integrated into the table itself, like Module:Sports table already does.
  • The only fundamental difference between football, rugby league, and rugby union's tables is the way competition points are handed out, which can be easily accounted for using Module:Sports table/Custom cells, as I already proved by coding a table that automatically adds the number in the bonus points column to the sum in the competition points column. It makes no sense for rugby tables to look and function differently from Module:Sports tables used for football and rugby league.

— AFC Vixen 🦊 14:12, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Module_talk:Sports_table/January_2023_RFC&oldid=1130508720"