Module talk:Sports table/January 2023 RFC

Sports table module
Please understand that Module:Sports table is an all-purpose table for the majority of sports, and not just association football. I put in a lot of effort to adapt Module:Sports table/Custom to suit the style of Top 14, with its bonus points counting to the sum of points as well, among other things. — AFC Vixen 🦊 (talk) 18:00, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Can you please explain what your "" is all about? — AFC Vixen 🦊 (talk) 01:42, 27 November 2022 (UTC)


 * To include tries and summaries of bonus points. This style of table is literally found in every European league. There is no reason for this to change for this one. Mikey&#39;Da&#39;Man, Archangel (talk) 01:53, 27 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Arguing that the current table should stay because it is in other articles is an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument that lacks an opinion as to why you think the current table is better than Module:Sports table. The sports table module is used very widely across Wikipedia, because its ability to automate table positions and sums of points makes it significantly easier for people to edit than having to manually add, change, and/or rearrange every single point of data into the table.
 * If you wanted the bonus points to be resolved into try and losing bonuses, and for tries to be included as well, then I can easily add those into the table's code. However, a WP:RELIABLE source would need to be found to verify these. The official Top 14 table does not document tries and only documents the total bonus points. The current source used in the table says all teams have 0 tries and 0 try bonuses... so it is clearly inaccurate. Le Figaro does not record tries or a breakdown of bonus points, and neither does the BBC or Sky Sports. Do you have a reliable source for these statistics that we could use? — AFC Vixen 🦊 (talk) 05:41, 27 November 2022 (UTC)


 * You still have not answered my inquiries, especially about your opinion as to why the current table is better than Module:Sports table, and about the inaccurate, unreliable source currently being used. Communication is required. Between the lack of communication and, I am starting to reconsider my presumption of good faith. — AFC Vixen 🦊 (talk) 23:02, 2 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Once again requesting a response to my concerns. — AFC Vixen 🦊 (talk) 19:50, 11 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I've asked twice that you please discuss this matter. I'm going to go ahead and restore my changes. If you revert without responding here, then I'm going to have to file a complaint against you at ANI for disruptive editing by reverting without discussing. — AFC Vixen 🦊 15:41, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * For the last time. This is not broken, therefore it does NOT need fixing. Therefore it will NOT be fixed. Mikey&#39;Da&#39;Man, Archangel (talk) 16:39, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * This seems like it's begging for an RFC where the arguments for and against are put up for comment and discussion from all users. Otherwise there's a lot of behavior here that veers in to WP:OWN territory. Mikey, AFC, would you two mind putting together position statements in the next day or two and we can run an RFC? --WhoIs 127.0.0.1 ping/loopback 13:28, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

I am hoping that we can immediately, without discussion, remove the "tries for" and "tries against" columns, and merge the "try bonus" and "losing bonus" columns into a simple "bonus" column. The current source is clearly unreliable as three of these columns are literally "0"s across the rows. This is objectively a failed verification. No reliable source I have seen (the official table, Le Figaro, BBC, Sky Sports) even has these numbers.

Otherwise, as a subjective argument for replacing the entire table instead of just these columns, I make three points.
 * Module:Sports table offers features such as automated sums and error messages that appear in the preview when errors occur. These are not available with a simple wikitext-based table, and make editing significantly easier and less-worry free.
 * The wikitext-based table currently used is more cumbersome in the way it displays information for the reader, such as an entire key in the footer that could instead be more conveniently integrated into the table itself, like Module:Sports table already does.
 * The only fundamental difference between football, rugby league, and rugby union's tables is the way competition points are handed out, which can be easily accounted for using Module:Sports table/Custom cells, by coding a table that automatically adds the number in the bonus points column to the sum in the competition points column. It makes no sense for rugby tables to look and function differently from Module:Sports tables used for football and rugby league.

— AFC Vixen 🦊 14:12, 30 December 2022 (UTC)


 * AFC, I appreciate your obvious passion but there's no need for immediate anything, see WP:NODEADLINE. Let's give Mikey a chance to state their full position, see if we can produce mutually agreeable short summaries of each side and then present it as an RFC posted in the usual places. This is going to take a little bit but I promise it will result in a lot more light and a lot less heat. --WhoIs 127.0.0.1 ping/loopback 17:25, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You told us "two" put together our position statements. You gave no indication that you wanted Mikey to give their position first. — AFC Vixen 🦊 17:34, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I wasn't commenting on the order, the fact that you went first is totally fine! I was commenting on the "immediately, without discussion" bit that you started with. Things are a little wound up, I get that, but I'm not here as anybody but just another editor who can help navigate the dispute resolution process. Let's get along? --WhoIs 127.0.0.1 ping/loopback 17:40, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I apologise that my response was unsatisfactory, but please understand that it was not meant as anything other than simply questioning your instructions. I am trying to write in as innocuous and inoffensive language as reasonably possible here. — AFC Vixen 🦊 17:55, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, I didn't take offense to it. I'll wait for Mikey now and we can get the ball rolling. -WhoIs 127.0.0.1 ping/loopback 18:01, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

My comment is the model I insist is used is the same used for other tables used in the sport. In terms of rugby union, this is the way the table currently is. The current table is also used in every other European league and competition provincially and internationally. Therefore, I do not understand why it should be changed to another module used in other sports. Using another module also does not improve the table, which is why I underline keeping it the way it is. Mikey'Da'Man, Archangel (talk) 22:32, 1 January 2023 (UTC)


 * , Mikey I'm placing this as a reply to you so you should already be notified. Here's what I've come up with and pruning it down to the recommended couple of sentences each. Let me know if you both believe this summarizes your position. We have this as the question:
 * Should this season's rugby union Top 14 Table be updated to the module-based table or remain as-is?
 * To that question we have two choices. Choice A will be Mikey's question since it represents a null change, the current version. Choice B will be AFC's because it represents a change it situation.
 * A: The table should remain. The consensus across rugby union articles is the wikitext based table across a wide variety of competitions and leagues. There is no pressing need to change formats.
 * B: The table should be updated to use Module:Sports. Using the module derived table makes continued maintenance of the table easier, allowing some fields to be automated and giving clear errors to identify problems, as well as substantial readability improvements. Other, similar sports have already moved to the module based table.
 * Do you both accept the wording and question? --(loopback) ping/whereis 17:00, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I presumed the way I wrote my arguments would be the one used. If you needed it to be significantly shorter, I would have liked to have been told so. In any case, I have tried my best to make my argument more concise than before, based on what you have written, even if it does remove some of the nuance that I fear is necessary:
 * B: The tables should be replaced with Module:Sports table. This universal module works fine for rugby union, and other, similar sports already use it; there is no need for different tables when one works for all. Continued maintenance of the table would be made easier through automated fields and error messages to identify problems, while its design improves readability and reduces size without removing information.
 * Please also include the two examples of Module:sports table and the Wikitext table as presented above. — AFC Vixen 🦊 20:50, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Your full position will be presented word for word in the arguments below the RfC question and statements. If you read WP:RfC you'll see So the table will go beneath the question and two statements. If you'd like me to include your updated statement in place of the one I produced I'm more then happy to do so. I've read it, it's neutral and short enough to be transcluded with the RfC template. I will still include your full argument with tables at the start of the RfC discussion. Is that ok? --(loopback) ping/whereis 22:00, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yep. — AFC Vixen 🦊 03:29, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Hoping to get your approval of the summary so I can get the RfC posted. --(loopback) ping/whereis 10:24, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Approved Mikey&#39;Da&#39;Man, Archangel (talk) 15:54, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * And for both of you, I just want to mention once I do get it posted and linked from the places it needs to be my involvement here will end. I'm not taking sides in the content dispute and won't be contributing to the community discussion. That's partly so that you both trust my neutrality. I appreciate both of you for working towards collaborative dispute resolution and for wanting to make the 'pedia a world class reference work. --(loopback) ping/whereis 10:29, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

RfC
Should this season's rugby union Top 14 Table be updated to the module-based table or remain as-is? --(loopback) ping/whereis 07:25, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

A: The table should remain. The consensus across rugby union articles is the wikitext based table across a wide variety of competitions and leagues. There is no pressing need to change formats.

B: The tables should be replaced with Module:Sports table. This universal module works fine for rugby union, and other, similar sports already use it; there is no need for different tables when one works for all. Continued maintenance of the table would be made easier through automated fields and error messages to identify problems, while its design improves readability and reduces size without removing information.

Full Reasoning
Copied from above:

A: My comment is the model I insist is used is the same used for other tables used in the sport. In terms of rugby union, this is the way the table currently is. The current table is also used in every other European league and competition provincially and internationally. Therefore, I do not understand why it should be changed to another module used in other sports. Using another module also does not improve the table, which is why I underline keeping it the way it is. Mikey'Da'Man, Archangel (talk) 22:32, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

B:

I am hoping that we can immediately, without discussion, remove the "tries for" and "tries against" columns, and merge the "try bonus" and "losing bonus" columns into a simple "bonus" column. The current source is clearly unreliable as three of these columns are literally "0"s across the rows. This is objectively a failed verification. No reliable source I have seen (the official table, Le Figaro, BBC, Sky Sports) even has these numbers.

Otherwise, as a subjective argument for replacing the entire table instead of just these columns, I make three points.
 * Module:Sports table offers features such as automated sums and error messages that appear in the preview when errors occur. These are not available with a simple wikitext-based table, and make editing significantly easier and less-worry free.
 * The wikitext-based table currently used is more cumbersome in the way it displays information for the reader, such as an entire key in the footer that could instead be more conveniently integrated into the table itself, like Module:Sports table already does.
 * The only fundamental difference between football, rugby league, and rugby union's tables is the way competition points are handed out, which can be easily accounted for using Module:Sports table/Custom cells, by coding a table that automatically adds the number in the bonus points column to the sum in the competition points column. It makes no sense for rugby tables to look and function differently from Module:Sports tables used for football and rugby league.

— AFC Vixen 🦊 14:12, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Editor discussion

 * Support B The headings scroll with the text, it is a template rather than a table which makes for easier and more consistent editing rather than working out what is going on with a table. The qualification column is more useful than how it appears in the table option. It is better for both viewers and editors of Wikipedia. Gusfriend (talk) 07:40, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 *  Comment  I'd probably lean to supporting B, but I'd like to see a sandboxed example of what the table would look like under the updated module before making a final decision. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:32, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Rugbyfan22 the module produced table is immediately above this section. Nthep (talk) 19:15, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry wasn't clear in the text, from the edit history I can see an example, needs some fine tuning, but Support B. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:21, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * What kind of fine tuning would you like to see? — AFC Vixen 🦊 22:56, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Nothing major, just on your example, I'd prefer the last place team to clearly state relegated to Rugby Pro D2 for this example, obviously will vary on each competition. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:18, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I updated the table per your suggestion. How does that look? — AFC Vixen 🦊 22:49, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah that's better, obviously will be improvements that can be made when implemented, as each league/competition is different, but the basis of everything I support. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:06, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support B The module has been designed to make editing these tables easier and includes checks to make sure points and games played add up. It also makes the colour coding easier to understand and simplifies the classification rules. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 15:29, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support B Certainly looks simpler to use the automated module rather than having everything be hard-coded. This doesn't mean that it's worth the effort of going back to prior years' templates and updating them, though. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 18:14, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I personally do not find it difficult, so I can easily take up the task of updating earlier seasons. — AFC Vixen 🦊 22:46, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Now that you have put the decision against me, I feel it is not right for me to continue updating the French leagues as much as I can, considering I was one of only a couple doing it, and for a brief tenure, the only person. My peaceful protest is now to say, you're on your own. Good luck. Mikey'Da'Man, Archangel (talk) 19:34, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Bonus points
Do you have a reliable source for the try and losing bonus split? As noted multiple times in the lengthy discussion above, neither LNR, Le Figaro, BBC, nor Sky Sports distinguish try and losing bonus points, and I was wondering if you were working with another reliable source that you didn't add to the bottom of the table... — AFC Vixen 🦊 05:21, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * , no, I copied them from fr:Championnat de France de rugby à XV 2022-2023. I will change them back to one column. Frietjes (talk) 16:25, 31 May 2023 (UTC)