Talk:Premiership Women's Rugby

OSM Location map
I was disappointed to see the addition of an OSM map. May I ask your opinion as to why the original Location maps are better in this instance? — AFC Vixen 🦊 08:27, 10 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Just look at basically any other rugby union article, the original location map fits in with them. Also, the large number of London based teams made the OSM map difficult to read. In my opinion, the original location map should stay for the on the readability and consistency aspects. LouisOrr27 (talk) 12:03, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Ideally, WP:OTHERCONTENT arguments like “look at basically any other rugby union article” should be avoided, but I completely understand the readability concerns. Do we need a second Location map if Ealing, Harlequins, and Saracens are adequately noted in the first one, though? — AFC Vixen 🦊 16:39, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I saw that you had the London Location map. I was wondering, if Louis is not going to opine on the subject, if you instead would be able to give me an explanation as to why it is absolutely necessary to have a London map, if Ealing, Harlequins, and Saracens are adequately noted in the England Location map? — AFC Vixen 🦊 05:02, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I believed that I was just following the existing precedent for the situation in which three or more teams had to be displayed on a map. The closest equivalent situation with which to compare it to is the case of Premiership Rugby, which as far as I can ascertain always displayed a submap for the Greater London area when three clubs were operating there in close proximity, I assume for legibility reasons. This was removed following the folding of London Irish, but you can go back and look at the older versions of the page. The current Super Rugby page also displays a submap for its Auckland based clubs. The Top 14 and the current Premiership rugby page only have two clubs operating in close proximity to list on their maps and so cannot provide a precedent to follow for the case of three clubs in the same location. For other precedent see the current Premier League and La Liga articles- submaps for places in which three or more clubs are present in close proximity. The only exceptions which use your preferred method for marking three or more clubs -a single location dot with a list of clubs provided on the map- that I can find are examples in which there would be multiple submaps- i.e 2023 Campeonato Brasileiro Série A which would require three, or 2022–23 UEFA Champions League which would require five. In these cases the multiple submaps would affect the length of a page considerably and affect article readability and length more than they would provide clarity to locations. All of these prior examples have shown that the most common school of thought on this subject, not only on rugby pages but on most sports pages, is that providing a submap for three or more clubs in one city is the solution with the greatest legibility, especially when only one submap is required. The submaps also provide greater specificity and context to the placing of the clubs. I believe a map should provide additional information to this when it does not make the page overly lengthy, which a single submap does not. It is not absolutely necessary to have this map present on the page, but it would make the article clearer, the England Location Map more informative and easier to read and the article more consistent with other pages concerning rugby union leagues and pages concerning sports leagues in general. I would be interested to hear your thoughts, and I am open to other solutions- for example, your map with a location point and a list of clubs on the main Premiership Women's Rugby Page and then more specific maps on the 2023-24 Premiership Women's Rugby Season page. Choc761 (talk) 11:40, 17 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I still think OSM Location map is the better option here. Louis is right to point out that the proximity of the London clubs makes them look somewhat illegible in the static preview, but this is ultimately an interactive map. You can see team and venue names, coordinates, and be able to zoom all the way into the venues. It works perfectly fine on both desktop and mobile Wikipedia. I don't understand why we should work in half-measures here; if we wanted simplicity and full legibility, a single Location map should do it. The convention being set at only two teams is frustratingly arbitrary to me, as the display of three teams seems so inoffensively okay. — AFC Vixen 🦊 00:37, 18 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I think that whether the OSM map or the map and submap are better is ultimately a matter of personal opinion. I can see the pros and cons of both- the map and submap is easier to read at first glance and for people who may not notice the interactive features on offer. On the other hand the interactive OSM is better at displaying more information and allowing the user to really understand the content being displayed. My only argument in favour of the map and London submap rather than the OSM map is that of consistency, both with other rugby union articles and with other sports articles across Wikipedia. Having only one OSM map on a single page could potentially make the situation worse not better, as users who are more used to the standard maps on every other page concerning rugby union leagues could miss the interactive features and have an inferior experience compared to if all maps were of the non-OSM style. Whether OSM maps or more standard maps should be used across rugby pages is not a question I can answer, and perhaps more a topic for Project Rugby Union to discuss. I also agree that the two team limit is arbitrary, but in lieu of official style guidelines it was the most consistent standard I could observe for the use of a submap across Wikipedia. I also see that you have edited the map and submap on the page- does this mean that you approve of the use of this map format on the page, or is this just a stop-gap until the matter is formally resolved? Choc761 (talk) 13:43, 18 July 2023 (UTC)


 * The tacit support for two Location maps meant I didn't have the right to revert it; I merely tried to clean up its appearance, that's all. I'm still disappointed. I bring up things like WP:OTHERCONTENT because I'm a believer in case-by-case resolution rather than adhering to "standards", especially when they aren't even written. Some articles are better with Location map, others with OSM, and to impose a standard on all of them favouring either one would be detrimental to articles that would've been better with the other. It's enshrined in policy that edits that improve an article shouldn't be blocked on political grounds alone (WP:IAR), which is why I'm more interested in arguments as to why two Location maps are better for this article than one Location map or an OSM, and couldn't be less interested in lengthy lectures about what other articles do. Of course, I mean no personal offence to you, but that's just my genuine view. — AFC Vixen 🦊 07:19, 19 July 2023 (UTC)