Talk:Women's Flat Track Derby Association Rankings

[Untitled]

I just updated this article to reflect the most recent rankings release (Oct. 5, 2014) and I think it looks a bit messy. It looked fine with a release that determines division placement, but since the table is strictly segregated by division I don't think it's particularly useful.

It may make more sense to ignore divisions for the ranking article and focus on playoffs. While playoffs do bear the title of the division they supposedly represent, they actually have little to do with each other. For instance a D3 team can make it to D1 playoffs (and almost did, see SoCal). I'm going to start working on redoing this table so it's easier to 1) update in the future, and 2) tell at a glance who's going to playoffs. Anyone have any input on what you would like the new table to look like? Zytsef (talk) 20:19, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Took a stab at it. Updated it for the November 2014 rankings and banished most mention of divisions in the process. This is in light of the latest announcement from WFTDA about how divisions won't matter much anymore. We will have to wait for more details, I think, but it sort of makes it seem like Division 3 is either going away entirely or won't matter at all (because there are no Division 3 playoffs and playoffs are the only thing divisions are going to be good for). Zytsef (talk) 17:43, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since there are articles for D1, D2 and D3, should there perhaps still be historical mentions of them? Echoedmyron (talk) 18:05, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure. I mentioned D1 and D2 in the prose part because they have tournaments. I'm not sure where we can shoehorn D3. Official rankings have done away with mentioning divisions and I'm not inclined to figure out which division a league is in on my own when updating the rankings here. I think the way things are right now is fine until we see the new white paper on divisions (the links from the WFTDA site still point to the old one). Derby Central seem to think that the minimum game play requirements are going to become universal across the whole org, despite which division a league is in. That would effectively make the bottom of D2 (not going to playoffs) and all of D3 equivalent. Zytsef (talk) 18:44, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New proposal for rankings table in article

The rankings table in the article hasn't been updated in over three years. There are now well over 300 member leagues being ranked (as of Nov 30 2014, over 100 leagues currently listed are missing) and many of these newer, missing leagues won't have articles and would mean making it a redlink farm, possibly. It will be a lengthy time-consuming process to update the article to reflect the latest rankings. It also seems to me that adding in the full list of all rankings is merely duplicating what is on the WFTDA website that could be satisfied with a citation. In light of that, I am proposing a couple of things:

when updating the table, to use a given year's end-of-year listing (the December 31 ranking that traditionally comes out in January).
limiting the table to the top so many ranked leagues, such as 100. This would minimize the redlinks, and save a ton of work. But perhaps another round number makes sense?
Breaking it down by Division 1 and Division 2 cutoffs isn't necessary as the D1 and D2 member teams are listed in the D1 and D2 articles, and with teams sometimes declining playoff invites the cutoff here isn't useful, since a team below the cutoff can still get invited to the upper level playoff. The cutoffs have changed since the section explaining them was written (I'll update that), and who knows, may change again.
removing the column for change in the rankings, as it makes sense to do an update end of year and not per rankings release, and then the change column would be confusing - change since previous release? change since previous end-of-year release?Echoedmyron (talk) 17:23, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]