Talk:Camrose Trophy

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Contract bridge, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Contract bridge 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.Contract bridgeWikipedia:WikiProject Contract bridgeTemplate:WikiProject Contract bridgeContract bridge articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Table as subsection? table with title?

Beside rewording for clarity and aesth, I have substituted a table with title "Career leaders by nation" for a subsection with the same title, consisting of the untitled table alone. (Simply, the section heading becomes the table title.) There is no loss of meaning because the table was alone. Often, I believe, there would be no loss of meaning where some text accompanies the table, although the section heading would not so often be a good table title verbatim.

This matter of style does or will arise for dozens of articles in Category: Bridge competitions. What should guide the decision? Some considerations without comment on their weight:

section headings are listed in tables of contents
section headings are anchors for links
table titles are free form. Section headings should not include links or other markup and the earlier section heading should be "Winners by nation" not "Winners by Nation".

A subsection "means" pause and clear the throat (ahem). Where that break is appropriate, the subsection format is more useful as the amount of text before the table is greater; useless or nearly so when there is no text before the table. --P64 (talk) 21:41, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In general, I prefer the subsection treatment with an untitled table.

In a related topic of style for tables, I am not keen to see a table of two or three narrow columns with a relatively long list of entries. Readers must scroll down repeatedly and this can be annoying if trying to get to the bottom of the table. When I can, I prefer to try to make such tables less long by doubling/repeating the column headers side by side (maybe with a spacer column). Unfortunately sortability is lost in this format. Any comments, other preferences or alternate treatments for longish lists? Newwhist (talk) 15:37, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. We should move this discussion to the WPCB Manual of Style pages. Newwhist (talk) 15:39, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have we replicated or referenced this discussion elsewhere?

For now let me simply note that User:OhConfucius edited the page automatically two months ago, primarily the main table: (a) unlink England always, other country names never; (b) delete the first {flagicon} in each row, so that two remain in 1972–73. --P64 (talk) 20:49, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article update

I have updated most of the article's stats up to and including 2013 - previously it was a couple of years behind. However I haven't been able to find up-to-date figures online for most appearances for each country. Also while the article contains a paragraph about the 2011 competition, there is nothing about 2012 and 2013. Possible solutions: (a) add something about 2012 and 2013; (b) remove the stuff about 2011 without adding anything about more recent years, to avoid the need to keep on updating the text every year (the need to update the tables is of course unavoidable); (c) both add the most recent years and delete the earlier one. JH (talk page) 21:31, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is generally desirable that the latest rendition is covered in some detail, if any is covered, but it isn't a need (see below). Because the amount of 2011 detail is unusually high, it seems appropriate to impose "solution" (b) in part. Here it is appropriate to retain the detail provided in first and last sentences regardless whether we are able to update it.

Wales won the 68th Camrose Trophy [and its first] as host nation in 2011. Both the 5-VP final margin and 17-VP per match recorded by Wales were the lowest for any winner under the six-team format.[4]

(Evidently I provided those 2011 prose details without repeating from the lead that that was the first win for Wales. Hard for me to believe now but the history confirms it.)

In many articles about annual events, prose coverage of a particular recent cycle provides some general information uniquely. Here, for instance, the ample section Structure does not even hint about annual timing, afaik, but coverage of the 2011 tournament places the conclusion in March. It's polite to retain that by some rewriting if you do feel compelled to delete recent-year data.

Thanks for asking. --P64 (talk) 20:44, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Needs

Prose needs

Are the four visiting nations represented by national champion open teams? If so, is that the year's one national champion (for England, Scotland, Wales) who also represents in EBL or WBF play during some 12-month cycle? Is the same true of host nation, team A?
What is the current provision in case of a tie? Any playoff? Double trophies?

Table needs

fix England's count, 52=>51
Title bars should indicate coverage (eg "to 2011") and source (superscript) where useful and available. I doubt we know the coverage or have a source for the player appearances.

For a table that provides a complete count, it may be better that coverage is deducible from a prose preface; one that now mentions 72 trophies(?) or winning teams(?) in 70 tournaments thru 2013. (That would indicate the mistake in national counts that sum to 73. More typically, I hope, the counts would sum to 72 and the complementary mention would provide assurance.) Comment needs

Comments inside tables may prod table editors to read the article and revise it. Explicit instructions may be appropriate, eg cross-refs from the tables that need joint update.

--P64 (talk) 20:09, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1961 tie/England win?

I don't entirely understand the inline comments - why do we not list 1961 as a tie, in accordance with the only reference that lists the results year by year? W. P. Uzer (talk) 08:58, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]