Talk:2016–17 World Rugby Sevens Series

Standings table: colours

PetevonPete — Hello, I reverted your changes that added more colours to the standings table. Most readers find that black text on a white background is easier to read than colourful backgrounds, which is why a white background makes sense as a default. There was a recent discussion at WP:FOOTY on the use of colours in tables, and the clear consensus there is that less is more. Thoughts? CUA 27 (talk) 03:53, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

CUA 27 -- The colors I put on the table aren't a stylistic choice, they convey relevant information. This Sevens World Series is part of the qualification process for the 2018 Rugby World Cup Sevens. It's always standard to indicate on the page for one tournament if it's part of qualification for a higher level tournament, it's the most important detail about this Series. The page for the 2014-2015 World Series does the same thiing with Olympic qualification. Deleting information like that isn't constructive, no matter what the consensus is regarding aesthetics. Aesthetics is never more important than content. That amount of color in the tables has never been a problem before, but if you insist I'll leave off the blue, but I don't see how you can justify removing directly relevant information that relates the subject of the page to a related topic.PetevonPete (talk) 05:35, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

PetevonPete — The colouring scheme here is very different than others. In most other tables that use colours, the meaning is clear to the average reader. E.g., the worst team gets relegated, or the best four teams qualify for the playoffs, etc. Here, on a table with 16 teams listed, we have highlighted the teams ranked 4, 11, 12, and 13. It's not clear to the reader what these places mean, and why it's mostly teams in the bottom half of the table who are qualifying. The reader would have to click onto the 2018 RWC Sevens site to understand the meaning. I'll experiment to see if there is a better way to present this information. CUA 27 (talk) 00:10, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

CUA 27 -- Well until you find an alternate way to present the information in the table I'm going to at least make sure the relevant information is there. I took your paragraph explaining the situation in text and put it at the top of the page, but simply listing information in a block of text literally defeats the entire purpose of having a table. Again, color coding tables like this is the norm for these tournaments and there's no reason not to do it other than the fact that you don't like the way the shading looks. I really don't think the way it's presented is at all confusing or requires going to a differet page. It's not unclear, it's explained right there in the table: the top four teams not already automatically qualified to the World Cup earn qualification. Now, if a reader wants to know why those teams are automatically qualified, then they can click the link, but that's not the information relevant to this Series. With Georgia automatically qualified for the 2019 World Cup, tables related to the Rugby Europe International Championships are getting color coded without the top team. The way the Pro12 does qualification to the Champions Cup isn't simply the top teams, but those tables are color coded. In fact if anything the fact that it's not as straightforward makes the color coding more helpful and necessary. Sure, the way you describe is the most common but it's not remotely a universal rule and certainly isn't a reason to cut out the information entirely. Anyone with decent reading comprehension will not have trouble with the table, and I feel the average Wikipedia article assumes more confidence in the reader's intelligence than you are displaying here. You're taking issue with minor things that I have never seen be a problem before with articles like these. If you can think of a better way to format the table to convey the information, I look forward to seeing it, but deleting the information entirely is not constructive. PetevonPete (talk) 05:15, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

PetevonPete — I'm not familiar with the example you give when you say "With Georgia automatically qualified for the 2019 World Cup, tables related to the Rugby Europe International Championships are getting color coded without the top team." Please provide a link to a couple of articles so that I can review. Thanks. CUA 27 (talk) 15:59, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Since I didn't hear back from my last post, I'll write to make my position clear. I continue to oppose the proposed change to add a colouring scheme for the RWC 7s (which is unlike colouring schemes for other rugby competitions), for several reasons:

• The majority of the participating core teams are not competing for a place at the RWC 7s. Unlike a qualifying tournament for the Rugby World Cup (where every team is competing to qualify), or a season competition for the 2016–17 English Premiership (where every team is competing to reach the playoffs and be crowned champion), here the majority of the teams' qualification for the RWC 7s has already been decided.
• This colouring scheme is not intuitive. With other competitions, the colouring scheme is easy to understand. E.g., the top two European teams qualified for the 2015 Rugby World Cup, the top four teams in the 2016–17 English Premiership qualify for the playoffs. Here we have what appears to be a grab bag of highlighting, with several teams in the lower half of the table highlighted. Readers will find it confusing why several poorly performing teams are apparently being rewarded, and would have to click through to other articles to understand the information presented.
• There is a significant difference between key information versus arguably relevant information. Tables (like an infobox) serve the reader best when they present only the key information. There is a lot of arguably relevant information that is not listed in the table — e.g., we don't use colouring schemes to indicate which team is the defending champion from last year, nor which teams leads the competition in scoring this year, nor which team is affiliated with which continental confederation, etc. Just because something arguably relevant can be depicted in a table, that doesn't mean that it should.

In sum, as things stand, there is no consensus to add the colouring scheme that you propose. CUA 27 (talk) 22:55, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

If there's no further opposition or other views then, I'll return the table to its previous version. CUA 27 (talk) 02:25, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

CUA 27 - Sorry I didn't get a chance the past couple week to check this page. That said,

You're still completely missing the point of why colors in tables are helpful. The fact that it's not simply the top teams qualifying is exactly why the colors in the table are necessary. For the Aviva Premiership, simply the top four teams qualify to the playoffs, so if anything the highlighting of the top four teams is redundant and unnecessary. The highlighting in this article points out which teams are in qualifying position in case the reader doesn't feel like reading through the explanation or has and still needs clarification. The fact that the highlighted teams are lower in the table is not a reason to erase the color scheme. You still seem to work under the assumption that the aesthetics of the table should come before the information conveyed. Again, the Pro12 decides European cup spots based on the top team in each country, not the table, but those league tables are still highlighted. If you think the readers will be confused that some lower half teams qualify for the RWC7s, then you have to assume they'll be just as confused why Treviso qualifies for the Champions Cup while sitting at second from the bottom. The tables for the Continental Sevens Championships highlight which teams qualify for the Hong Kong Sevens even though they're not at the top of the table. With Georgia already qualified for the 2017 RWC, it's not simply the top two teams in Europe qualifying for that competition.

"The majority of the participating core teams are not competing for a place at the RWC 7s. "

That's completely irrelevant to the topic. The majority of participating core teams are also not in danger of relegation, but that's still a vital piece of information for the lower teams. The RWC makes this series different from others, again, exactly like the series that qualified for the Olympics. If a team fails to qualify for the RWC 7s in this series, that has major implications for them going forward into 2017 continental championships.

"Readers will find it confusing why several poorly performing teams are apparently being rewarded, and would have to click through to other articles to understand the information presented."

No, again, all of the relevant information is already in the article. The highest ranked teams not already qualified are in qualifying position, the article also explains how a country is already automatically qualified. This is not difficult to understand. Again, you're taking less confidence in the reader's ability for reading comprehension than any previous article in this field.

"There is a significant difference between key information versus arguably relevant information."

Yes, and again, the results for qualification to the top rugby sevens competition in the world is key information. All of those other examples you listed is false equivalency. Again, rugby articles always highlight when the results of one tournament qualify for a higher level tournament, and in sevens the chain is continentals --> world series --> Olympics/RWC7s (technically, the RWC7s is consdidered higher than the Olympics). This has never been a problem before and these kinds of articles have always assumed that the reader is intelligent enough to understand that qualification position isn't always simply the top few spots.

"In sum, as things stand, there is no consensus to add the colouring scheme that you propose."

I am not the one making changes or additions, I'm trying to keep consistency with other rugby sevens articles. It's more accurate to say that there's no consensus in your subtractions. You are the only user who has shown this much of a problem with coloring tables in rugby articles, so to say that you represent the default consensus is dishonest. PetevonPete (talk)18:10, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

PetevonPete — I won't respond to everything in your lengthy post, but just a few points:

• The fact that you added a similar colouring scheme to Continental Sevens Championships — an article where you are the only registered user who has made significant contributions, and which discusses a tournament with such a small following that it's questionable whether the article even meets WP:GNG or WP:NSPORTS — hardly establishes any kind of consensus across WPRU pages.
• You greatly overstate the importance of the RWC 7s. World Rugby almost scrapped the RWC 7s as they were lobbying for rugby sevens to join the Olympics, and the 2013 RWC 7s was played in mostly empty stadiums.
• It's hard to square your claim "I am not the one making changes or additions" to your edit here which started this discussion. CUA 27 (talk) 22:54, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

CUA 27

• The assertion that I'm the only one contributing to the continental sevens championships pages is simply not true. I may have gotten the 2016 pages started by transfering over the basic template from the previous years, but it's been followed by others adding and filling in the page, without ever having a problem with helpful color coding in the tables until now. The fact that no one besides you has taken an issue with it does imply some level of consensus. I could say the exact same thing about you changing the color scheme of the 2015-2016 table from the existing consensus so that it's consistant with what you wanted for this year's table.
• It doesn't matter how much stake you or I personally put into the RWC 7s. World Rugby bills the tournament as the world's biggest 7s tournament. They decided against scrapping it after the Olympics because a tournament with just 12 teams isn't sufficient to be the definitive global stage of the sport. The fact that it drew lackluster crowds in Moscow also isn't relevant to the topic. The Wellington Sevens also had abysmall attendance last year, but that doesn't make it less important than the other legs, because attendance size has no bearing on the status of a tournament. Despite the fact that qualification sets this series apart from the others and it's what several of the teams are trying to accomplish, all of your logic seems to be rooted in the assumption that the World Cup "doesn't count" somehow or isn't as important as the annual world series, which is objectively not true. I'm still getting the feeling that you decided on not coloring the table for aesthetic reasons and then worked backward to come up with reasons to justify that, rather than having the top priority be information conveyed.
• I'm not the one making changes because this kind of color keying is not a change, it's the norm. In this case a subtraction is a change instead of an addition. If you decided that listing the hosts both in the infobox and in the section below was redundant and decided to delete one of them, that would also be a change, not someone adding it back in. 23:30, 2 January 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PetevonPete (talk • contribs)

Soliciting outside input

Ham105 —

PetevonPete and I disagree over the colour scheme used in the standings table. Seeing as how you are the only other person to recently edit the table, would you mind weighing in on whether the table should include a colouring scheme that shows qualification for the 2018 RWC 7s? If you don't feel like reading everything above I'll attempt to summarize: PetevonPete would like to add the colouring scheme because he argues that it contains relevant information regarding qualifying for an importance tournament and that this is the standard format for standings tables on rugby pages; I don't think it should be added because for the majority of the core teams their World Series performance cannot affect their qualification for the 2018 RWC 7s and because the results display teams scattered throughout the table as qualifying, which is confusing to readers. (Apologies to PetevonPete if my summary of his position is incorrect). CUA 27 (talk) 22:43, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

CUA 27 - I think Ham105 or anyone else weighing in on the topic really should read through all the points and counter-points brought up first, but yes, we need more than two people to give opinions on this. PetevonPete (PetevonPete) 23:38, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

---

Hi CUA 27 and PetevonPete - as all with edit lists of long standing I'm sure we can reach a consensus on this one that satisfies most concerns. I've read through the points and counter-points and will add my thoughts and a proposed version for the standings format that might be suitable. It seems to me that we are trying to show three sets of things within the one table. In order of importance these are:

1. Info from the current season - i.e. the rankings of teams and accumulated points for the 2016–17 Series. This is pretty much covered off by the plain table without considering colours. Having said that, the overuse of colour can detract from this (the primary purpose of the table) and make something that should be simple to understand look confusing.
2. Info about next season - i.e. who is in line to be relegated at the end of the series and who remain as core teams. I'm also going to include info about teams not eligible for core team status next season (although arguably it's info from the current season); and finally
3. Info about qualification for the next RWC 7s. Most of the teams for 2018 were determined years ago but there are still four spots up for grabs based on this season's rankings in the 2016–17 Series. While I regard this as only the third priority, if this can be included in the table (so we don't lose information) and be included unobtrusively (so it doesn't dominate the more pertinent info for the article about the 2016–17 Series) then we should include it.

I have some other comments but will withhold them for now as the post is already long. I actually quite like the use of green to signify teams that win qualification, but at the same time don't like to see tables lit up like a christmas tree with every row in gaudy colours. So I'd like to propose a layout something like below, which I think covers a bit of both sides of the coin. Please feel free to comment. -- Ham105 (talk) 08:40, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

World Rugby Sevens Series XVIII
Pos.	Event  Team	Dubai	Cape Town	Wellington	Sydney	Las Vegas	Vancouver	Hong Kong	Singapore	Paris	London	Points total
1	South Africa	22	19	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	41
2	England	17	22	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	39
3	Fiji	19	13	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	32
4	Scotland	12	15	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	27
5	New Zealand	10	17	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	27
6	Wales	15	10	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	25
7	Australia	13	5	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	18
8	United States	8	10	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	18
9	France	10	8	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	18
10	Kenya	5	12	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	17
11	Argentina	5	7	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	12
12	Samoa	7	1	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	8
13	Canada	3	3	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	6
14	Russia	1	5	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	6
15	Uganda	2	2	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	4
16	Japan	1	1	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	2
17	Papua New Guinea	–	–	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	0

Source: World Rugby

Legend
World Sevens Series qualification for 2017–18
No colour	Qualified as a core team for Series XIX
Pink	Relegated as the lowest placed core team at the end of Series XVIII
Yellow	Not a core team
World Cup 7s qualification for 2018
Already confirmed for 2018 (host country USA and 2013 quarterfinalists)
Qualified as one of the four highest placed teams from Series XVIII that not have already qualified.

---

Ham105 -- I think the version of the table you've made works perfectly. PetevonPete (talk), 08:51 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Ham105 — Agreed. Thanks for jumping in, an elegant solution. I may tweak the wording of the legend slightly, but the table itself works well. CUA 27 (talk) 23:47, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

References

Gold Silver Bronze

From 2016-17 the Cup, Plate, Bowl and Shield disappear, to be replaced by winner - Gold, finalist - Silver, Third - Bronze and the winner of the 9th place gets tthe Challenge Trophy.

The problems I can see in Wikipedia are:

• In each year country page such as 2017 Singapore Sevens
  • the "info box" refers to Cup, Plate, Bowl and Shield when it should just have Gold, Silver, Bronze and Challenge Trophy
  • The Knockout stages need new titles, 13th place, Challenge Trophy, 5th place, Final
• In the 2016–17 World Rugby Sevens Series
  • The box per tournament needs to change, how about:-

Event	Winners	Score	Finalists	Semifinalists
Final	South Africa	26–14	Fiji	England Wales
5th Place	Australia	19–12	Scotland	France New Zealand
Challenge Trophy	United States	28–14	Samoa	Argentina Kenya
13th Place	Canada	20–17	Uganda	Japan Russia

• • The standings could add colour to the 1st, 2nd and 3rd on each competition. - choice of two colours shown...

2016–17 World Rugby Sevens Series
Pos	Event  Team	Dubai	Cape Town	Wellington	Sydney	Las Vegas	Vancouver	Hong Kong	Singapore	Paris	London	Points total
1	South Africa	22	19	22	22	22	19	19	12	-	-	157
2	Fiji	19	13	19	13	19	17	22	10	-	-	132
3	England	17	22	10	19	13	22	10	17	-	-	130

• In World Rugby Sevens Series
  • Points schedule needs updating

I do not know how to change the "info box", any ideas anyone ? Ânes-pur-sàng (talk) 15:38, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with the proposal to add more colours to the standings table. See the discussion above, which resulted in a decision not to bathe the table in unnecessary colours. CUA 27 (talk) 18:50, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, Oppose. I disagree with adding more colours to the standings as per CUA 27 and also oppose adding the medal icons such as to the summary tables. The plainer format with more restrained use of icons and colours, per MOS:TABLES, is more accessible. -- Ham105 (talk) 08:53, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

OK, as regards the colours, fine, it was just a suggestion. As regards the medals, having put them in place, I do not think they look very good, so am happy to remove them.

I would however like to see something in place in this article showing that it is a gold/silver/bronze medal award system.

How about changing the Tour venues to show the three medal places, instead of just a winner, with the three column headers in a gold/silver/bronze colour, same as Olympics pages, which would match the description from the Sevens organisers of issuing Olympic style medals rather than a cup.

2016–17 Venues

Leg	Stadium	City	Date	Gold	Silver	Bronze
Dubai	The Sevens	Dubai	2–3 December 2016	South Africa	Fiji	England
South Africa	Cape Town Stadium	Cape Town	10–11 December 2016	England	South Africa	New Zealand

I like the new info box in 2017 Singapore Sevens, linked with the Tournament placings which show the three medal places. Thanks User:Ham105. Ânes-pur-sàng (talk) 12:12, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Ânes-pur-sàng. I think in the article for the overall season, i.e. 2016–17 World Rugby Sevens Series, that a separate summary showing showing the tallies of medals won would be more appropriate.

Instead of overloading the schedule details by adding minor place-getters to the dates and locations, perhaps a summary like the one below could be placed at the end of the 'tournaments' section.

Summary of placings

Tallies of top four tournament placings within the 2016–17 series, by team (updated to round 8):

Team	Gold	Silver	Bronze	Fourth	Total
South Africa	4	3	-	-	7
England	2	1	2	-	5
Fiji	1	3	1	-	5
Canada	1	-	-	1	2
United States	-	1	1	2	4
New Zealand	-	-	2	1	3
Australia	-	-	1	2	3
Scotland	-	-	1	1	2
Wales	-	-	-	1	1
Totals	8	8	8	8	32

Have the particulars of medals awarded (and all place getters) on the applicable tournament page – see 2017 Singapore Sevens§Tournament placings, for example. That's the idea behind having separate articles for each tournament; so as not to repeat too many fine details of each one in the article on the season-long series. Thoughts? -- Ham105 (talk) 19:39, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I will go with that, it looks good and it covers the main point I was making of now displaying the fact that medals were being won, well done. Ânes-pur-sàng (talk) 07:09, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks, Ânes-pur-sàng. I've added it and let's see how it goes. -- Ham105 (talk) 08:30, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

One more thing, Ânes-pur-sàng. It is possible to become carried away with the idea of "medals". While medals are awarded as keepsakes to each team member for the top three placegetting teams, the finals matches are still the "Cup Quarterfinals", the "Cup Semifinals" and the "Cup Final" — see the fixtures on the World Rugby website, e.g. for Paris. The Cup is still the main prize. Compare these two photos: Singapore 7s 2017 and London RWC 2105 — did giving the players medals in 2015 mean the match was no longer the Cup Final? No. The event is still The Cup, and the main event at each sevens tournament is still The Cup. -- Ham105 (talk) 15:33, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I can see what you mean and I'm confused:

the narrative attached to the Singapore winners does not mention the word cup, just medals [[1]] but they are holding a cup

the Vancouver event winners do not have a cup but the narrative mentions cup matches and "gold". [[2]]

the Dubai event does not mention a cup, nor does it mention medals [[3]]

from what I have read, only one Cup is awarded, a season's Cup, based on points won at all the events, so the winner of each event is only awarded medals, however all competitors play in all the competitions for points towards the awarding of a season's Cup.

I think there is a bit of a drag from the old system into the wording for this year, referring to a Cup.

I cannot see a definitive answer in the organisers web site, so I will go with what you say. Maybe it will be clearer next year. Ânes-pur-sàng (talk) 17:40, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

---

No, every tournament has a Cup. I will just add your name in here, Ânes-pur-sàng, so you get an alert in case this page is not on your watchlist. There are two brackets for the finals at each sevens tournament, known as:

1. The Cup, played for by the top eight teams from the pools
2. Challenge Trophy, consolation prize played for by the next eight teams from the pools.

The World Rugby website also refers to the tournaments as "Rounds", by the way, (see here) but I'll let you remove my text on that because it's not a major thing.

Removing all mention of the Cup bracket and Cup winners, however, is another matter. See the fixtures pages here, results pages here, and search for yourself. Every tournament schedule calls the top bracket playoffs the "Cup Quarterfinals", the "Cup Semifinals" and the "Cup Final". If you still are not convinced then:

1. Look at this Las Vegas document on page 2 describing the "Cup Final Presentation", or
2. Open one of the official schedules, e.g. for Wellington – download here.

To think that these documents are somehow mistaken or that there is "a bit of drag from the old system" is just wrong.

Even the Vancouver photo you posted shows the winner's Cup. It's a Canadian Indigenous design, see detail here. Others: Wellington, Sydney, Las Vegas, Hong Kong, Dubai, Cape Town.

Photos for Singapore and, of course, Vancouver have already been posted. -- Ham105 (talk) 00:29, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I was at the Paris event yesterday, there was a challenge cup but no sign of a top level cup, just medals given to the top three teams. I have some photos, I will see if they are OK to post. - Ânes-pur-sàng (talk) 20:20, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Here are the photos, Ânes-pur-sàng: the winner's cup raised on the podium at Paris (note carefully the ornate leaf filigree on the handles either side and the box-shaped plinth); and a closer view here, held by Dylan Sage. -- Ham105 (talk) 21:50, 15 May 2017 (UTC) --- I must have been dazzled by the exploding confetti - thanks for that - Ânes-pur-sàng (talk) 05:44, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

References

2018 qualification

I believe Samoa has qualified as one of the four highest placed teams from the 2016–17 World Rugby Sevens Series that have not already qualified. Am I right ? - Just worked it out myself, if Russia get 22 points in London and Samoa 1, they will be tied, so not qualified yet. Ânes-pur-sàng (talk) 20:17, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

---

References

^[4]