Template talk:Super League XIV ladder

After the season ends

This applies primarily to the table used last season, for now, but will apply to this one eventually: Should the "last result" column be removed? Once the league isn't a current event the last league match is no more important than the other 26. LunarLander // talk // 23:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems fair to me. GW(talk) 08:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Colour key

I've just removed the colour for league leader from the template for a couple of reasons. The LL position is the same (except for getting the hubcap) as the other play-off positions. The league leader position is already evident as it is the team at the top of the table. A colour for LL could be misleading because that does not decide the championship. If a colour for the championship was included as well, there could be inconsistency between seasons if a team both topped the table and won the Grand Final.

The current 'system' that has developed is only to show on the table what the table has decided. So if there is a regular season and then a play-off decides the championship, the teams involved in the play-offs are coloured green. If there is no play-off system, for example the first couple of years of Super League, and the team at the top of the table are champions, that team is coloured gold. LunarLander // talk // 14:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I made the distinction quite clear though, that the League Leader's Shield only referred to the minor premiers, not the Super League Grand Final winners. However, your point about the league leaders being self-evident is a valid one. I'd like to make one stylistic difference though. GW (talk) 18:59, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Remove the heading

I really don't think there's any need to put a ==Table== in this template. This template would be far more flexible if it didn't have this header, and those articles that absolutely depend on it can just have the header added manually anyway. So if there's no objections, I'll remove it. GW (talk) 09:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Julianhall (talk) 11:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, the older season templates and the pages they appear on should be changed for consistency too. LunarLander // talk // 13:43, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tnavbar-header in table

I'm not keen on using this ({{Tnavbar-header|[[Super League XIV]]|Super League XIV Ladder}}) in the header because it unnecessarily adds the name of the league again when this template's main article is Super League XIV and the only other pages it might appear on are season results or team season pages. I know the NRL ladders use it but I disagree with that too. If this is kept, headers that look similar need to be added to 100 or so other RFL season tables (because most of those are not templates so Tnavbar-header would not work on them).

The easy access to v . d . e is good though. I prefer {{align|right|{{navbar|Super League XIV ladder|mini=1}}}} as it has no title link but that has problems too as it is only good for templates and most British seasons have a table as part of the article rather than a template because they're only needed in one article right now.

My concerns in a nutshell are visual consistency across all seasons from 1895 - present. LunarLander // talk // 13:43, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're presuming someone would not be able to make, for example, the 1895–96 Wigan RLFC season article, in which case the argument for moving the table present in 1895-96 Northern Rugby Football Union season to a template would be substantiated. It's a classic case of recentism, but since we have club season articles for the modern day, there's absolutely no argument against making such an article, in which case, I'd happily put a header on the 1895 template. In either case, I'd generally advise using the header so readers can view the original context of the template, and so it's easier for would-be editors. GW (talk) 17:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm presuming that for a long time nobody will create an article such as 1895–96 Wigan RLFC season because it is only in the last week that we have completed the creation of articles for each RFL season. Back to the templates though: are you planning/agreeing to move all the tables in season articles to new templates some time soon? I'm happy with that and will help, if yes. Do you think we would receive any hassle for having a hundred templates each used on only one article for a time or do you think it would be fine?

Naming conventions: With seasons that had a single division, it is simple: template name = the season article name + ladder on the end. With multiple divisions or Yorkshire/Lancashire leagues we need to agree on a format.

One minor change though, I plan (at some point) to move all the articles over to using the en dash (–) per the manual of style so we might as well start the templates off using the en dash. LunarLander // talk // 18:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No objections to the last point, ranges and scores should usually use en dashes according to MoS. As far as templates go, I can't find any objections here, but if you think it would strike a nerve with someone, then let's seek consensus on WP:RL's talk page. I certainly have no objections to creating a template for each season though. GW (talk) 22:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I can't find any objections written in the guidance but it is possible to delete by consensus. In one of the proposals for deletion, I saw one person criticise a template for only being used in two articles. We'll be able to say that the number will go up in future on ours, of course and I'm sure WP:RL members would support us. LunarLander // talk // 00:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]