Template talk:Snooker world rankings

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Snooker (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject Snooker, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of snooker on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the quality scale.


Resolved: Invisible span statements were removed. Armbrust The Homunculus 19:50, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Please discuss the use of invisible span statements for indentation here, rather than engaging in an edit war. I personally think they are entirely unnecessary, and are entirely browser dependent. On my web browser the lines don't align and wrap to two lines per decade. I think we should just remove this extraneous formatting and allow the browser to naturally determine where to wrap the lines. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:36, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the formatting of the template is just fine, is uses the same 10 page grouping per row as every other snooker tournament templates. Don't remove the hidden elements without consensus. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 19:40, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
You have now violated WP:3RR. Do I need to request a block? I strongly suggest you undo your latest revert. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:45, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
I strongly suggest, that after that you do the same. There is no consensus for your changes. You should have started a discussion after you were first reverted and not making change again. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 19:53, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
There are two editors here who disagree with you. I will ask for an uninvolved admin to review the 3RR violation. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:01, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Would this be an acceptable compromise? Do you have a 800x600 resolution monitor? ("wrap to two lines per decade") Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 20:14, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Personally speaking I prefer the rankings ordered by decade. Eras in the sport tend to be discussed in terms of decades, so it's an organic presentation. Lots of other articles organise templates by decade i.e. {{Films by year}} so what's the big deal about the snooker one? If it's just an issue of the invisible text then Armbrust's mock-up above seems to overcome that issue. Betty Logan (talk) 01:05, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
    • For me, this version is the best. the use of {{!}} as separators is strongly discouraged by wp:accessibility. the fake list items acting as headings is also not good in terms of wp:accessibility, since there is nothing in the html markup to indicate it is a heading, or the scope of the heading. the {{NavboxYears}} template is also bad in that it uses tables for layout. these are lists, and we should be using list markup. the fact that the template width changes when you expand and contract it is not the best, and the fact that it is not the same as the width of other navbox templates is also bad. I have no problem with splitting them by decade (like this for example), but we should not use hidden spans to enforce alignment. we should also try to steer clear of excessive use of tables to enforce layout. what looks good on one browser and/or one screen size, does not necessarily look good on another. Frietjes (talk) 15:00, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
      • If you don't like {{NavboxYears}}, than why don't you nominate it for deletion. It is used BTW for every tennis tournament, but you don't dare to convert them no Navboxes. Right? This discussion also doesn't extends to the other template, if you want to change every template, than bring it up at WT:SNOOKER. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 15:42, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Now this dispute has spread to other snooker templates, this really needs to be decided on a project level. I've started a discussion at the Snooker Project. Betty Logan (talk) 01:42, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

2011/12 vs. 2011/2012[edit]


Why are we using "2011/12" for the link in the first group, but "2011/2012" in the second. It would seem they should be the same? Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:38, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I forgot to change it. Now done. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 19:40, 25 March 2012 (UTC)