Template talk:2018–19 A-League table

Multiple colour permutations for particular rows

The display with multiple rows for a team showing two different colours for different permutations unnecessarily complicates the Table; permutations for finals series can be determined through following the link. Although it is possible to do so in the templating, doesn't mean it needs to be done. Matilda Maniac (talk) 07:12, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Matilda Maniac, I oppose your input, you can see Template:2012–13 Premier League table. That table uses multiple rows for a team showing two different colours for different permutations, thanks Hhkohh (talk) 10:28, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

That example is very atypical, and only happened a few weeks ago to an article that was essentially 'stable' for the last few years with a single line for Wigan. This format is also atypical of how the A-league template articles have functioned for at least the last few years. I welcome your input ! Matilda Maniac (talk) 12:18, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

and by the way, there's a wonderful edit war happening at that template more recently. Have those guys been shut down ? Matilda Maniac (talk) 12:18, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Matilda Maniac, edit warring? wow... But the permutations using 2 color is better to classify ACL and Final series. So it is better to use yellow for final series and use green for ACL Hhkohh (talk) 13:32, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

For the Premier League, the old version is fine. It was only changed by 86.40.204.69 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Frietjes (talk · contribs) and 51.171.136.148 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Getting a new color for relegation AND qualification looks better than two rows for the same club but in different color. The current version in this A-League table. one color and the statement with "AND" is ok, no need to use two colors for the same club just for two statements. Matthew_hk tc 13:53, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Matthew hk, can you point me to diffs? I see no edits from any of these editors (including me) in the history for this template. Frietjes (talk) 13:58, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

@Frietjes: People quoting your edit on Template:2012–13 Premier League table to justify their edit on this template: Template:2018–19 A-League table. Matthew_hk tc 14:01, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

oh, I see, I had converted that template to use Module:Sports table. either method seems fine to me (two colours or one new colour). Frietjes (talk) 14:08, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

To me, whenever possible the fewer number of total colours used in a table, the better (cognitively the number of colours a person can distinguish the underlying information is probably around 3, e.g. red, yellow and green; 4 is probably already a bit too much). So for that Premier League table, using two already-existing colours for Wigan is definitely better than creating a new colour to convey a rarely-seen combination (and the colour is grey, which looks like Wigan have been disqualified). For this table, both versions use two total colours, so it's a tie for me using this criteria. If say, a team can qualify for ACL without entering Finals series (let's say FFA decides to offer an ACL place to FFA Cup winners), then I would definitely vote for using both green and yellow for a team which qualifies for both ACL and Finals series (since otherwise you would need to create a 3rd colour to convery this information), but since this does not happen it's a moot point. Without considering colours, one table has more height but less width, while the other has less height but more width, which probably does not matter much reading in a laptop, but reading it on a smartphone I guess it depends on whether you prefer to scroll more vertically or horizontally, which I don't know what the general preference is? Chanheigeorge (talk) 21:27, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

permutations for finals series can be determined through one click following the link (Finals series). All the relevant information is there before and during the finals series. Matilda Maniac (talk) 21:56, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

How many readers do you think will actually click on the link to obtain this additional information? I forgot where I read it, but the research is that Wikipedia readers rarely click on links. There is no prompt here to say that such additional information will be obtained there. Chanheigeorge (talk) 22:25, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Also shouldn't there be a distinction between 1st-2nd and 3rd-6th since they enter different play-off rounds. Right now they both just say "Qualification to Final series". See for example 2018 Major League Soccer season#Conference standings, where the distinction is clear. Chanheigeorge (talk) 21:36, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Otherwise someone will point our you will also need to distinguish 3rd/4th from 5th/6th as they are hosts of the first elimination matches. I think it is pretty common knowledge that Finals series almost always have some inequality or differences - rewarding the higher placed teams. I don't see that this needs to be set out by additional colours, nor by split colours. Matilda Maniac (talk) 21:50, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I am not talking about colours here, but simply a distinction in words, e.g., distinction between "Qualification to Finals series elimination-finals" and "Qualification to Finals series semi-finals". Just like in Template:2012–13 Premier League table, there is "2013–14 UEFA Champions League Group Stage" and "2013–14 UEFA Champions League Play-off Round". Also, seeding for the next round usually is not indicated in the table, e.g UCL tables do not distinguish between group winners who are seeded and group runners-up who are unseeded, they just say "qualification to knockout round". If the group winners and runners-up subsequently enter different rounds, it will almost be certainly edited in a way to indicate the difference. Chanheigeorge (talk) 22:29, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Also "it is pretty common knowledge...." Pretty common knowledge to who? To people who regularly A-League, yes. Certainly not for people who don't watch A-League regularly. Articles should not be written exclusively to people who are familiar with the topic. Chanheigeorge (talk) 22:30, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Matilda Maniac, just note that we do not distinguish 3rd/4th from 5th/6th in MLS. Hhkohh (talk) 09:00, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Simply put, the colour of the row is defined by the highest competition qualified for. This is why the teams who qualify for the Club World Cup is shown in bronze and not the Champions League green colour. The only time this should show more than one colour is indeed when a club qualifies for a continental tournament and is also relegated. This doesn't need to change. - J man708 (talk) 13:48, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Adding a note (as recently changed in this article by Chanheigeorge) seems a bit redundant as the information is there when you click on the Finals series anyway. However, it is a HUGE improvement in my opinion on the split colour template solution previously envisaged. Matilda Maniac (talk) 07:52, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

If there is a footnote, then readers know that they can obtain additional relevant information by clicking on this note. This is especially good on a smartphone, where the contents of the note will appear at the bottom of the screen, without actually moving the readers to another page/section in Wikipedia, so readers can easily continue reading what they are reading without getting sidetracked. Chanheigeorge (talk) 08:02, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Color issues

• Related discussion: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive_92#Colouring_system_for_tables_and_national_end-of-season_playoff_positions

• @J man708: Per Champions League/Copa Libertadores Top in country green1, lighter green for earlier rounds, so I think group stage should be green1, play-off round should be green2 and preliminary round 2 should be green3 Hhkohh (talk) 13:37, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Repinging J man708 Hhkohh (talk) 13:39, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the colours should all be like how you suggested, but to change it would change literally thousands of articles. It's far too much a Herculean task. What's more important is that we should maintain being consistent with the other 5,000 or so season articles. Trust me, I tried changing it a while back. It will end out going to the WP:Football page and being filibustered until you can't be fucked fighting anymore. - J man708 (talk) 13:49, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I will open a discussion in WT:FOOTY Hhkohh (talk) 13:52, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Seriously dude, best of luck! - J man708 (talk) 14:04, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Discussion created ,J man708 Hhkohh (talk) 22:35, 23 October 2018 (UTC)