Talk:Utah Warriors

Untitled
Why does this team have a page, when they never actually played an official match, but real teams which have been around for decades have their pages removed from Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.47.28.222 (talk) 19:57, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The team is notable as it did play in RSL during the 2011 season. CUA 27 (talk) 17:54, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Utah Warriors (rugby union). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110727122039/http://www.wearerugby.com/news/articles/new-team-joins-super-league to http://www.wearerugby.com/news/articles/new-team-joins-super-league

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:12, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Same name, different teams
This MLR team is a different entity than the team with the same name that played in Super League several years previously. CUA 27 (talk) 01:28, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

I plan to split this article into two separate articles. One for the 2011 RSL team, one for the 2018 MLR team. They are different teams, different owners, playing in different leagues. CUA 27 (talk) 18:11, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 6 August 2018

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: moved, per consensus. — usernamekiran (talk)  22:34, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

– The sports team at this page is the primary topic as the other entities of this name are no longer in operation, existed briefly, and left less of an impact than the entity that should be considered the primary topic. I would move the pages myself but it appears to be a little complicated because a) the name I'm requesting a move to is currently being used for the disambiguation page, and b) there are a fair number of links to the current page. BeforeILoseMyStyle (talk) 05:13, 6 August 2018 (UTC) Related to the move I am requesting above. The page with the name that includes (disambiguation) that currently exists redirects to the page that should be in that spot currently. I suppose this may be more of a merger request than a rename.BeforeILoseMyStyle (talk) 05:13, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Utah Warriors (rugby union) → Utah Warriors
 * Utah Warriors → Utah Warriors (disambiguation)
 * While the move might be correct, I have an issue with and left less of an impact than the entity that should be considered the primary topic - this team started this year, how exactly have they had any meaningful impact already? I see no mention of any awards or notable achievements in the article. --Gonnym (talk) 13:54, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * That statement was more about the other teams of this name. The indoor football team existed briefly over a decade ago in a league that has long since ceased operations, and may be best known as a predecessor to an arena football team that has also long since folded. Similarly, the Rugby Super League team only played one season as an amateur club. As for the current team of this name, they compete in a top-level professional competition for their sport in the United States. Their matches are broadcast regularly on CBS Sports, ESPN+, and AT&T SportsNet Rocky Mountain - exposure far exceeding what the other two received during their existences. On the field, they made the playoffs in their first season and the performances of their players led to call-ups by the national teams of the United States and Tonga. They have also seen two players earn contracts with European clubs that are considered among the best professional sides in the sport. The team's most notable accomplishment to date is setting the attendance record for a domestic senior level match in the U.S. during a match against the Glendale Raptors. (That last bit will be added to the team's current page shortly.) BeforeILoseMyStyle (talk) 17:25, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Support the move – Statistics indicate that Utah Warriors (rugby union) is the primary topic.
 * Firstly, page views for:
 * |Utah_Warriors_(rugby_union)|Utah_Warriors_(indoor_football) All data available i.e. since January 2015; and
 * |Utah_Warriors_(rugby_union)|Utah_Warriors_(indoor_football) This year's data, i.e. since January 2018;
 * ... yielded the following at the time of posting –
 * {| class="wikitable" style="text-align:center;"

!# !!Page !! January 2015 – present !! January 2018 – present
 * 1 || align=left| Utah Warriors (rugby union)      || 35,126 views || 28,211 views
 * 2 || align=left| Utah Warriors (indoor football)  || 3,022 views  || 856 views
 * 3 || align=left| Utah Warriors (Rugby Super League) || 837 views   || 837 views
 * colspan=2|Totals || 38,985 views || 29,904 views  77%
 * }
 * So 77% of all page views were recorded since January this year, with only 23% in the three years prior to that. In the interests of accuracy, only the data since January 2018 truly reflects the count for the present topic at Utah Warriors (rugby union) relating to the MLR team because the page for the RSL team from 2011 – Utah Warriors (Rugby Super League) – was only split away at that time.
 * However, even comparing only the 2018 count for Utah Warriors (rugby union), i.e. those views for the MLR team, to all other views for the combined Utah Warriors pages it is overwhelmingly clear that the MLR topic has most page views.
 * Taking a look at Google searches (although one has to be careful about the queries used and interpreting the results) also supports Utah Warriors (rugby union), i.e. the MLR team, being the primary topic, at least from my browser.
 * 1. Searching "Utah Warriors" yielded about 79,000 results, but analysing the first 100 of those:
 * 89 related to the MLR rugby team,
 * 1 was for the RSL rugby team from 2011,
 * 2 were for the indoor football team,
 * 2 for hockey and lacrosse (1 each)
 * 3 historical references to Native American conflicts in the 1800s,
 * 1 result led to the Brigham Young University sports page, and
 * 2 were slightly misleading references to the Golden State Warriors playing the Utah Jazz.
 * 2. Searching "Utah Warriors rugby" yields about 12,400 results
 * 3. Searching "Utah Warriors football" or "Utah Warriors indoor" yields 33 results.
 * -- Ham105 (talk) 18:20, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 2 were slightly misleading references to the Golden State Warriors playing the Utah Jazz.
 * 2. Searching "Utah Warriors rugby" yields about 12,400 results
 * 3. Searching "Utah Warriors football" or "Utah Warriors indoor" yields 33 results.
 * -- Ham105 (talk) 18:20, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Support per viewership statistics above and to prefer the current use rather than defunct teams.  Sounder Bruce  06:11, 7 August 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Colored tables
Overuse of color in the background of the season summary impairs the page. It is not necessary to encode every row of match results in traffic light colors.

Even for readers with normal vision this reduces contrast and clarity, and it also reduces accessibility.

Removing this extra color to use white on green instead of red on green provides better contrast. -- Ham105 (talk) 19:10, 12 February 2019 (UTC)


 * As I was the one who originally added it the the MLR articles (WP:BOLD edit and all), I will state I don't have a hard opinion one way or another. I understand MOS:CONTRAST and the desire to make sure all pages meet it, but both backgrounds should be fine (see contrast ratios for the red and green). It is also the common way most team season articles are used in the US and Canada (see expanded templates in 2018 Los Angeles Dodgers season, 2017–18 Golden State Warriors season, 2018 New England Patriots season, and 2017–18 Washington Capitals season for use in each of the Big 4 leagues). It also helps differentiate the losses from the cancelled/postponed games. On the other hand, reading comprehension should also be assumed and no colors are needed at all and is why I have no opinion if they are removed. Perhaps has a different opinion? Yosemiter (talk) 21:46, 12 February 2019 (UTC)


 * If you look at every other teams page, in the MLR, they are exactly like what I have been adding to the season summary table. I think it would be better if all of the pages were a like and looked exactly the same when it comes to the season summary tables. DylanFaraci98 (talk) 18:23, 12 February 2019 (EST)


 * I believe you mean to reply to User:Ham105, not me. I am the one who added them to the MLR pages in the first place (when I overhauled all the articles to more closely match the Manual of Style and other North American team articles), so you do not need to explain to me that they are there. Ham is the one who feels the pages would be better without them. I merely pinged you so you could state your opinion when you re-added them after Ham removed them. This discussion is part of the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and is a normal procedure. Yosemiter (talk) 23:48, 12 February 2019 (UTC)


 * (P.S. please stop re-adding them during the discussion per BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. If you continue to impose your revision despite opposition from an editor looking to discuss it, it will appear that you are edit warring, which could eventually lead to a block. Thank you, Yosemiter (talk) 23:55, 12 February 2019 (UTC))

Hi Yosemiter and DylanFaraci98. Yes, this is about poor contrast for win and loss. I hadn't mentioned legibility of the text. Removing the red provides better win/loss contrast and improves the differentiation even for normal vision. This is applicable to other MLR articles or further afield. Some other comments: Thanks -- Ham105 (talk) 04:10, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I note the examples provided have tables collapsed. Perhaps they were recognized as a visual blight that should be hidden. More seriously, though, there's no requirement for a traffic light color coding of game results. Less is more.
 * Should this data really be in the Utah Warriors team article? The concise season summary is already included on the page, and the match details are covered on last year's season page.


 * As I showed in my previous links, the color contrast is perfectly acceptable for the accessibility standards. It is used on 1000s of pages (unless you wanted to argue WP:OTHER and maybe all those should be changed). So this is more of a MOS:NAVBOXCOLOR and personal preference thing. The collapsed templates I linked are primarily to keep the page in shorter standard format when the page is being opened in past seasons, the templates are auto-expanded by the month if the season is on-going (see 2018–19 Washington Capitals season). I doubt it is collapsed because of "a visual blight". (Possibly read Don't edit war over the colour of templates, which is similar in regards to use of arguing over the use of accessible colors when it does not matter that much.) In regards to you point "Should this data really be in the Utah Warriors team article? The concise season summary is already included on the page, and the match details are covered on last year's season page." I 100% agreewith you. It is a duplicate to the league season pages and unnecessary on any team page. A short prose summary would probably be preferred for each season and look more like an encyclopedic and less like a WP:NOTSTATS almanac. Which is exactly what is done on other established team pages, even for leagues not WP:GNG-notable enough to have team season pages. It seems logical to remove the individual match tables on the team pages. As I previously stated, I have no horse in this race. I came across some very sloppy team articles, with little knowledge of rugby, but applied the MOS standards to the dates/dashes and added uniformity to other major leagues in North America. I have done what I could to try and fix the articles, but I have no desire to maintain them. Hopefully someone just uses whatever becomes the consensus format for the MLR teams in the future. Yosemiter (talk) 04:48, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * You did make improvements and that's appreciated. My discussion here only goes to the match results table data and its color coding. Several side issues have been raised (the ownership of visual blight is all mine, but I had hoped the "more seriously, though" rider showed it was intended as humor). Let's set aside navboxes, the separate question of text legibility (which your links posted above address), WP:OTHER, etc, and reach a consensus. We do agree on many points. My preferred outcome is also to remove the individual match tables on the team pages in favor of the summary stats and prose. That bypasses the color coding question. Two preseasons now, plus two regular seasons and this will keep growing. The tables now take up about half the article spaces and, while the team pages aren't yet overly large, this is disproportionate for what is meant to be an encyclopedic article.DylanFaraci98, do you have other thoughts on this? -- Ham105 (talk) 07:13, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * and could we add the exhibition match results prior to the regular season results since the 2018 or 2019 MLR seasons are covering the entire league and not individual teams. DylanFaraci98 (talk) 09:43, 13 February 2019 (EST)
 * When we use coloured backgrounds in tables, we need to take note of two accessibility issues:
 * Are we trying to convey information using colour alone? Obvious any information conveyed solely by colour is unavailable to visitors using screen readers and visitors who are colour-blind. In this case, however, each winning match is identified as winning in the text of the table row, and similarly for each losing match. So you are not denying any visitor the information.
 * Can the vast majority of visitors read the text comfortably? To ascertain whether the text will stand out enough against a coloured background, I recommend using Snook's Colour Contrast Check and try to pick colours that pass all of the eight tests. The good news is that the colours used (#CCFFCC and #FFCCCC) pass the tests when using black text. The bad news is that any links in the table don't quite pass the "Colour Difference" test – at least using the standard #002BB8 from the monobook skin. It's slightly worse for the red background when visited links are displayed. If you wanted to ensure that you pass all the tests, you would have to go to #ECFFEC and #FFECEC, which are rather anaemic pastel shades –  some poorly adjusted monitors may display them as very close to white.
 * In short, there are better background colour choices than the ones presently used if you want to maximise the number of visitors who can read the text comfortably. --RexxS (talk) 15:44, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Are we trying to convey information using colour alone? Obvious any information conveyed solely by colour is unavailable to visitors using screen readers and visitors who are colour-blind. In this case, however, each winning match is identified as winning in the text of the table row, and similarly for each losing match. So you are not denying any visitor the information.
 * Can the vast majority of visitors read the text comfortably? To ascertain whether the text will stand out enough against a coloured background, I recommend using Snook's Colour Contrast Check and try to pick colours that pass all of the eight tests. The good news is that the colours used (#CCFFCC and #FFCCCC) pass the tests when using black text. The bad news is that any links in the table don't quite pass the "Colour Difference" test – at least using the standard #002BB8 from the monobook skin. It's slightly worse for the red background when visited links are displayed. If you wanted to ensure that you pass all the tests, you would have to go to #ECFFEC and #FFECEC, which are rather anaemic pastel shades –  some poorly adjusted monitors may display them as very close to white.
 * In short, there are better background colour choices than the ones presently used if you want to maximise the number of visitors who can read the text comfortably. --RexxS (talk) 15:44, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

In light of User:RexxS's info (I did ask for help on the Accessibility project, so thank you for the input), I feel removing the tables altogether is the best option as the summaries are located at 2018 Major League Rugby season and 2019 Major League Rugby season. There is absolutely no reason for duplicate stats as Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. As to DylanFaraci98's concerns about exhibition games, they seem inconsequential to full member teams and have little significance to the encyclopedic content, but pre-season/exhibition sections on league season pages are common. I have no opinion on the matter if the league itself has some coverage of the exhibitions. Further, I noticed the league season pages also uses the questionable color backgrounds, such as the red in 2018 Major League Rugby season as well as blue with a link. Seems like there are still problems no matter what. Yosemiter (talk) 23:10, 14 February 2019 (UTC)