Talk:Super League XIV

Results Table

As per my comments on the Super League XIII Talk Page page, i don't feel that the results table is a suitable format for displaying the season's results. If the teams played each other twice each only, it would be ideal, but the Magic Weekend throws in an extra fixture. How do we record this in the table? Maybe an additional table just for the Magic Weekend results? In addition to this, i would propose that a 2009 Super League season results page is created to match the corresponding 2008 page, and the results can be documented in detail there. Does anyone else have any thoughts on this? Julianhall (talk) 16:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In my incredibly limited experience of Wikipedia's Rugby League section, there aren't enough volunteers to keep up with a full in-depth results page for SL. Vast parts of the 2008 season were left unfilled because of a lack of activity (Round 15 onwards). Also, I don't see any necessity for it, when the BBC and Sky have a match report for each and every single Super League game, and each club has its own "current season" page anyway. Surely it'd be more practical to reference?

As far as Magic Weekend is concerned, just make a list, IMO. Ginger Warrior (talk) 13:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)Ginger Warrior[reply]

I thought about this again and I thought it was a bit unfair of me. I tend to "shoot the breeze" a bit. I've read further into Wikipedia's MoS standards and using this to reference other sites that much would be inappropriate, not to mention lazy. My main gripe against last season's results page is its layout. It looks like a list with little organisation. The NRL's version looks more well presented, and necessitates less volunteers. I'd be happy to work on something like that. That's just my twopence. What should we go ahead with? Ginger Warrior (talk) 23:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)Ginger_Warrior[reply]

Sorry for the delay in replying. I agree that the 2008 season was rather hit-and-miss. I was adding quite a few of the results, until someone changed the format to list scorers, referees, etc. At that point i stopped because, frankly, i didn't want to commit the amount of time that would be involved. I agree, the 2007 NRL Season Results is a very good article, and certainly i would agree with a similar page for the 2009 Super League results. Julianhall (talk) 22:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we've reached consensus then. Sorry for my delay in replying; trying to get all the SL clubs' 2009 pages up in time for the start of the season (two more to go!). If someone wants to make a start, we only need Rounds 1, 2 and 17 for now (first weekend). If not, I'll do it when I've finished other tasks.GW(talk) 23:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Around a week ago, i created 2009 Super League season results, which i have already filled in with the fixtures for rounds 2, 3 and 17 (first weekend) and round 1 (following weekend). I have hidden them because of the potential copyright issues caused by displaying fixtures, rather than results. Obviously you can feel free to look at what i've done and add any comments, any feedback or improvements would be good! As far as the actual Super League XIV page is concerned, i think that all it should contain is a link to the 2009 Super League season results page, then results only have to be kept up-to-date in one place. Sound good? Julianhall (talk) 00:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. If we're going to have results pages, then this page should be left as a summary of the season (new rule changes, table, kits, stats, promoted teams etc.). All the results should be kept in one place. The only improvement I can think of on the results page is to have a collapsible league table after each round, but it's not exactly important, nor necessary.GW(talk) 10:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about the league table after each round, but it would prove difficult to keep up with (that is to say it's quite a lot of work to be doing each and every round. Plus if it got 'missed' one round, it might prove difficult to find out the information to fill in retroactively). What i do think might be a good idea would be a line graph plotting where each team stood in the table at the end of each round. That way a team's position could be tracked on a round-by-round basis on just one chart. Thoughts? Is there a tool to plot graphs in Wikipedia? Julianhall (talk) 20:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A graph was my first idea, given its obvious practicalities. Wikipedia:GRAPH has something about a program that can plot points but I'm not familiar with it. I experimented with a horizontal line graph and even going to near the maximum width my 17" screen can take... you can read it but it takes a little effort. For now, I've uploaded it onto my Photobucket account instead of Commons. See what you make of it - we can always reduce the size to a thumbnail in the article anyway.GW(talk) 21:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly the sort of thing i was thinking about. I went away and put together something similar on Excel, but yours looks better. One suggestion - make it 'at the end of round:', rather than 'games played'. Because of the current fixture list, After Thursday, the next time that every team will have played the same number of games will be at the end of Round 17. This means that Wigan and Wakefield will be "a step ahead" of the other teams until then with the format you have done. If it's done as 'at the end of round:', it can be updated after Round 1, then all teams will be on a similar footing. Did that make sense? If so, do you agree? Julianhall (talk) 22:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that makes sense, but the only thing is that you'll have one result in Round 17, one in Round 3, and one in Round 2 before a kick in Round 1's even been made. The reason I put 'games played' is because it treats the rearranged fixtures as the respective teams' "first round". I guess what we're really discussing is how do we accommodate the three rearranged fixtures into the line graph? The best solution I can think of would be to say "End of week #", which is irrespective of how many games each team has played. GW(talk) 14:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, "End of week #" is the way to go. That's what i was getting at but you've described it much better than i did. I would also suggest counting Round 1 as Week 1, because otherwise over half of the teams won't have played a match, and will be mid-table by default, rather than because of results. Julianhall (talk) 16:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I've done it on a time basis instead, graduated by weeks - I'll take a screenshot on each Sunday evening (except for CC weekends, of course). See what you think. GW(talk) 21:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Superb. One thing i spotted in Wikipedia:Graph#Guidelines is point 2, that graphs should be "as language-free as possible". Given that this is a chart that will appeal mostly to English-speaking readers, i don't think that's an issue in this case (i don't expect the Super League results page to be translated into Japanese, for example). Julianhall (talk) 21:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, i've added it: 2009 Super League season results#Progress Chart. Julianhall (talk) 22:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good, good. Now we need a league table. Thankfully, there's a lovely little template I found. I'll add it. GW(talk) 23:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Woops, didn't realise it was already in this article first. Never mind. GW(talk) 23:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's a nice visual table on the 2008 NRL page [1] which is nice and clear and clean. You can see each team's points at the end of each round all in the one table. florrie 17:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think a visual version and a text version would both go nicely. I've made a similar one for Super League XIV.[2] It seems a bit pointless adding it right now when only 4/14 teams have played. I'll add when all teams have completed one round. GW(talk) 22:09, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed format?

I'm not sure how these things are sorted out, but I do know WP's done by consensus. I was going through WP:RL's talk archives and I noticed there was some confusion about an agreed format to do results pages in. Should we adopt the new table format as standard, and get filling the missing results pages from the other Super League seasons with it? GW(talk) 15:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason not to. It might be worth seeking approval from a few others (maybe in the WP:RL section somewhere), as it's a lot of work to do if it's just going to be reverted. Julianhall (talk) 17:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Super League XXIX which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 10:08, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]