Template talk:GTA table
 | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
New template
[edit]@Astros4477 and Dom497: We have a new template to make GTA rankings easier. Should be pretty easy to follow. Basically fill in the rankings for your ride, add a type (steel/wood), and an access date and you are good to go. All references will be filled out fully for you with the name "GTAXXXX" so you can reference them in text. I will link this in with the WikiProject, create better documentation, and create another template for Hawker poll when I get a chance. Hope it helps. Themeparkgc Talk 22:58, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks! Great idea!--Dom497 (talk) 02:50, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
- This was such a great idea, it's going to help so much. I'm in the processing of converting the articles and something came to my attention. What should we put if the ride didn't rank a certain year? Take Mean Streak for example. I put -- for now but I think we should discuss this.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 02:51, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
- In the documentation I suggested "any intermediary years where the ride did not rank should be marked with an en-dash (–)". I tried to automate this process from within the template, but doing so resulted in an unhealthy number of if statements that were painful to debug and modify when additional years were added. Anyway, I think an en-dash is suitable. Themeparkgc Talk 06:30, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
- @Themeparkgc: Just a quick question, is there any way we can add some code that includes the
<ref name=gta2011>so we don't get duplicated ref's like in Griffon (ref 23 and 27)?--Dom497 (talk) 20:16, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
- @Themeparkgc: Just a quick question, is there any way we can add some code that includes the
- It already does that. The format is exactly how you had it but in caps, so
<ref name=GTA2011>. Themeparkgc Talk 06:13, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
- It already does that. The format is exactly how you had it but in caps, so
2019 update
[edit]Just wanted to drop a note here that it became an issue when the GTA publication stopped listing the top 50 for wood and steel in the main PDF that it publishes each year. Starting in 2016, the yearly publication only listed the top 25 for each category, and the rest of the top 50 was shown instead at separate links on their website. I reached out to template guru Ahect at their talk page to see if we could have two separate URLs for each year, and configure the template to show the correct URL automatically depending on the "type" parameter. So for a 2019 ranking on a "steel" coaster, for example, the cited reference in the table would point to 2019 Top 50 Steel Coasters instead of the main 2019 Golden Ticket Awards. --GoneIn60 (talk) 01:33, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Is this table getting too wide?
[edit]Each time we add a year to this table, it gets wider, and it is now wider than many browser windows. I am experimenting with a table that has a row for each decade. Please take a look at Template:GTA table/testcases to see what the sandbox version looks like.
Right now, one problem is that if all of the entries for a decade are blank, there is an empty pair of rows, as shown in the last test case. That should be fixable, and I'll be happy to work on it if this change looks like an improvement. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:19, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
- Jonesey95: Yes, sooner or later, the length will definitely need to be dealt with. However, depending on the age of the roller coaster and what part of the decade we're in, separating by decade won't look quite right in a lot of articles. Take Steel Vengeance or Mystic Timbers for example. When 2020 hits, we're going to have one row with 2 or 3 entries, and then a new row with only 1 entry. It will look somewhat odd until we reach 2025 or 2026, but then odd again at 2030 through the mid 2030s when a third row enters the picture. Readers will be able to identify the pattern at some point, but it may not be obvious at first and seem unintentional.I think it's a step in the right direction though. Maybe what we need is a way to add parameters to the template that allow us to manually split the rows, instead of picking an arbitrary item (such as decade) as the separator. Manual makes the process more tedious, but at the same time, it gives us more control. Just a thought... --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:54, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
- One thought I had was to automatically insert "NA" or "–" or some other value when a year was missing, so that every instance of the template would have the same number of table cells. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:39, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
- That's an idea. I'd favor "–" if it was between those two. Would it also be possible to add an optional parameter that when invoked would cause the table to ignore the decade split? It would be nice to still have the option. I think I'd use it in some articles. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:54, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
- Take a look at the "Wood2" and "Steel2" test cases now. I think they look pretty nice. Feedback is welcome. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:40, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
- That's an idea. I'd favor "–" if it was between those two. Would it also be possible to add an optional parameter that when invoked would cause the table to ignore the decade split? It would be nice to still have the option. I think I'd use it in some articles. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:54, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
- One thought I had was to automatically insert "NA" or "–" or some other value when a year was missing, so that every instance of the template would have the same number of table cells. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:39, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I think we have two good use cases now, but there is a third. Imagine we have a coaster that has been ranked every year since 2010. Well, we'd like it to split into a new decade as we get into the 2020s, but we wouldn't want two rows of just ndashes. We'd need a third option to tell the template what decade to start listing, for example "|start=2010" or something like that would ignore the 1990s and 2000s. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:13, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
Arbitrary break
[edit]@Jonesey95 and GoneIn60: Hi! I know that that conversation was from 2019, but this issue has only become more of a problem as more and more years are being added with this template. I was wondering if this ever came to any sort of conclusion or usable state, as the current version of the template hangs off the screen on almost every page. Plighting Engineerd (talk) 00:56, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- I still think a newer coaster that has recently joined the GTA rankings doesn't need to have the previous decades appear, but we should probably move forward with something sooner rather than later. Better to have wasted space than to have display issues. We could always seek additional help from other template gurus on adding advanced parameters if needed. --GoneIn60 (talk) 01:47, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- I agree with this. As long as there aren't any major issues, I think implementing the current version on the testcase page would help a lot, then other changes can be made afterwards. In my opinion, if a year is not defined, it should be hidden. This would apply to years before the ride's creation (or after its removal). This means that the updated template would provide the same output as the current version does until the ride crosses a decade barrier, in which case the template would make a new row. Plighting Engineerd (talk) 02:18, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Think we agree for the most part, except perhaps one small piece. Although we should hide years before the ride's creation and after its removal, I think empty/undefined years in-between can be helpful when shown. Displaying the gaps of time when a coaster drops out of the rankings while still in operation communicates something visually that you might not have otherwise noticed, at least immediately, if the years had been skipped over and left out. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 04:50, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree with that as well. That shouldn't need any custom handling in the template code itself though because years like that are defined by manually putting a
–into the year parameter. Plighting Engineerd (talk) 11:40, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree with that as well. That shouldn't need any custom handling in the template code itself though because years like that are defined by manually putting a
- Think we agree for the most part, except perhaps one small piece. Although we should hide years before the ride's creation and after its removal, I think empty/undefined years in-between can be helpful when shown. Displaying the gaps of time when a coaster drops out of the rankings while still in operation communicates something visually that you might not have otherwise noticed, at least immediately, if the years had been skipped over and left out. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 04:50, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- I agree with this. As long as there aren't any major issues, I think implementing the current version on the testcase page would help a lot, then other changes can be made afterwards. In my opinion, if a year is not defined, it should be hidden. This would apply to years before the ride's creation (or after its removal). This means that the updated template would provide the same output as the current version does until the ride crosses a decade barrier, in which case the template would make a new row. Plighting Engineerd (talk) 02:18, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: I left a discussion notice at WP:VPT#Template assistance needed. Hopefully someone with the technical expertise needed to move forward can weigh in. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:44, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- The table could become much narrower with the same number of cells. See [1] for a test showing a possible design (not the template code to make it). PrimeHunter (talk) 01:03, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- I'd say that's a good plan B. Appreciate the effort with that suggestion. It would definitely buy a little time. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 02:26, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- Jonesey95, Ahecht: Thank you both for your help modifying/tweaking templates for WP:APARKS in the past. If either of you have time to review the discussion above and make the proposed changes to this template, we would greatly appreciate the assistance. Also feel free to suggest further improvements to help future-proof this template from expected growth 5-10 years down the road. I think the best solution is one where we can still control which years are displayed in the chart. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:32, 2 May 2024 (UTC)