Template talk:Finals progress - Revision history

Smjg: for its purpose

2010-12-13T14:24:45Z

for its purpose

The Doctor at 14:06, 13 December 2010

2010-12-13T14:06:12Z

Drawoh at 13:55, 13 December 2010

2010-12-13T13:55:49Z

Drawoh at 13:54, 13 December 2010

2010-12-13T13:54:33Z

Smjg: reply

2010-12-13T13:48:24Z

The Doctor at 13:42, 13 December 2010

2010-12-13T13:42:03Z

Drawoh at 13:38, 13 December 2010

2010-12-13T13:38:03Z

JRTerrier24 at 13:05, 13 December 2010

2010-12-13T13:05:53Z

Drawoh at 12:52, 13 December 2010

2010-12-13T12:52:44Z

Smjg: format change proposal

2010-12-13T12:30:13Z

format change proposal

New page

Posted on my talk page:
: Hi.
: Is there a way of making it say "[[Jack Hurst]] (1) vs ?" [[User:The Doctor|The Doctor]] 10:50, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Not the way it's coded at the moment. Moreover, we should have a consistent format for all progress charts – either do this "[[Jack Hurst]] (1) vs ?" thing, or leave filling in each box until both contestants are known. So it would be a matter of recoding this, and similarly the CoC progress templates. I should have no difficulty implementing this change, but first, let's see what the consensus is.
{| class="progress"
| class="cocqf" | {{pc|[[Jack Hurst]]|[[Jack Hurst]]|1}} vs {{pc|[[Peter Godwin]]|[[Jack Hurst]]|8}}
| rowspan="2" class="cocsf" |
| rowspan="4" class="cocf" |
|-
| class="cocqf" | {{pc|[[Scott Gillies]]||5}} vs {{pc|[[Marcus Hares]]||4}}
|-
| class="cocqf" | {{pc|[[Daniel Pati]]||3}} vs {{pc|[[Tom Rowell]]||6}}
| rowspan="2" class="cocsf" |
|-
| class="cocqf" | {{pc|[[Niall Young]]|[[Eoin Monaghan]]|7}} vs {{pc|[[Eoin Monaghan]]|[[Eoin Monaghan]]|2}}
|}
or
{| class="progress"
| class="cocqf" | {{pc|[[Jack Hurst]]|[[Jack Hurst]]|1}} vs {{pc|[[Peter Godwin]]|[[Jack Hurst]]|8}}
| rowspan="2" class="cocsf" | {{pc|[[Jack Hurst]]||1}} vs ?
| rowspan="4" class="cocf" |
|-
| class="cocqf" | {{pc|[[Scott Gillies]]||5}} vs {{pc|[[Marcus Hares]]||4}}
|-
| class="cocqf" | {{pc|[[Daniel Pati]]||3}} vs {{pc|[[Tom Rowell]]||6}}
| rowspan="2" class="cocsf" | ? vs {{pc|[[Eoin Monaghan]]||2}}
|-
| class="cocqf" | {{pc|[[Niall Young]]|[[Eoin Monaghan]]|7}} vs {{pc|[[Eoin Monaghan]]|[[Eoin Monaghan]]|2}}
|}
Which do people prefer? -- [[User:Smjg|smjg]] 12:30, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:24, 13 December 2010
Line 55:		Line 55:
	::: Following that argument, you might as well do away with the progress chart altogether - the episode table shows it all. The progress chart shows it in a more pictorial manner, and I would suggest that it could be used right from the moment that the first seed is confirmed in that position.--[[User:Drawoh\|Drawoh]] 13:54, 13 December 2010 (UTC)		::: Following that argument, you might as well do away with the progress chart altogether - the episode table shows it all. The progress chart shows it in a more pictorial manner, and I would suggest that it could be used right from the moment that the first seed is confirmed in that position.--[[User:Drawoh\|Drawoh]] 13:54, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
	::::It is a bit more pictorial, that's definately agreed, but the question is is pictorial better? [[User:The Doctor\|The Doctor]] 14:06, 13 December 2010 (UTC)		::::It is a bit more pictorial, that's definately agreed, but the question is is pictorial better? [[User:The Doctor\|The Doctor]] 14:06, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
		+	::::: It's better for its purpose - showing how the finals progressed or are progressing. The episode table, OTOH, is better for showing the data it shows. Still, my point is that I'm not sure it's worth putting up the progress chart before all seeds are confirmed. -- [[User:Smjg\|smjg]] 14:24, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:06, 13 December 2010
Line 54:		Line 54:
	:: Showing those who have been confirmed in the progress chart - so that we can tell in advance who will/won't be playing whom? The episode table does this job at the moment.... -- [[User:Smjg\|smjg]] 13:48, 13 December 2010 (UTC)		:: Showing those who have been confirmed in the progress chart - so that we can tell in advance who will/won't be playing whom? The episode table does this job at the moment.... -- [[User:Smjg\|smjg]] 13:48, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
	::: Following that argument, you might as well do away with the progress chart altogether - the episode table shows it all. The progress chart shows it in a more pictorial manner, and I would suggest that it could be used right from the moment that the first seed is confirmed in that position.--[[User:Drawoh\|Drawoh]] 13:54, 13 December 2010 (UTC)		::: Following that argument, you might as well do away with the progress chart altogether - the episode table shows it all. The progress chart shows it in a more pictorial manner, and I would suggest that it could be used right from the moment that the first seed is confirmed in that position.--[[User:Drawoh\|Drawoh]] 13:54, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
		+	::::It is a bit more pictorial, that's definately agreed, but the question is is pictorial better? [[User:The Doctor\|The Doctor]] 14:06, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

@@ Line 50: / Line 50: @@
 ::::[[User:The Doctor|The Doctor]] 13:42, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 ::::: Why is the "tba" in bold?  We use it in this table to show who has won the game.  And I'm inclined to think "TBA" would look slightly better....
 :: Showing those who have been confirmed in the progress chart - so that we can tell in advance who will/won't be playing whom?  The episode table does this job at the moment.... -- [[User:Smjg|smjg]] 13:48, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 ::: Following that argument, you might as well do away with the progress chart altogether - the episode table shows it all.  The progress chart shows it in a more pictorial manner, and I would suggest that it could be used right from the moment that the first seed is confirmed in that position.--[[User:Drawoh|Drawoh]] 13:54, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:54, 13 December 2010
Line 52:		Line 52:

	:: Showing those who have been confirmed in the progress chart - so that we can tell in advance who will/won't be playing whom? The episode table does this job at the moment.... -- [[User:Smjg\|smjg]] 13:48, 13 December 2010 (UTC)		:: Showing those who have been confirmed in the progress chart - so that we can tell in advance who will/won't be playing whom? The episode table does this job at the moment.... -- [[User:Smjg\|smjg]] 13:48, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
		+	::: Following that argument, you might as well do away with the progress chart altogether - the episode table shows it all. The progress chart shows it in a more pictorial manner, and I would suggest that it could be used right from the moment that the first seed is confirmed in that position.--[[User:Drawoh\|Drawoh]] 13:54, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:48, 13 December 2010
Line 49:		Line 49:

	::::[[User:The Doctor\|The Doctor]] 13:42, 13 December 2010 (UTC)		::::[[User:The Doctor\|The Doctor]] 13:42, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
		+	::::: Why is the "tba" in bold? We use it in this table to show who has won the game. And I'm inclined to think "TBA" would look slightly better....
		+
		+	:: Showing those who have been confirmed in the progress chart - so that we can tell in advance who will/won't be playing whom? The episode table does this job at the moment.... -- [[User:Smjg\|smjg]] 13:48, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:42, 13 December 2010
Line 34:		Line 34:
	::I think I'd agree with Howard as well. The 2nd option does look slightly odd to me. [[User:JRTerrier24\|JRTerrier24]] 13:05, 13 December 2010 (UTC)		::I think I'd agree with Howard as well. The 2nd option does look slightly odd to me. [[User:JRTerrier24\|JRTerrier24]] 13:05, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
	:::Maybe '''tba''' instead of '''?''' would look better in option 2.--[[User:Drawoh\|Drawoh]] 13:38, 13 December 2010 (UTC)		:::Maybe '''tba''' instead of '''?''' would look better in option 2.--[[User:Drawoh\|Drawoh]] 13:38, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
		+	:::: You mean like this?
		+	::::{\| class="progress"
		+	\| class="cocqf" \| {{pc\|[[Jack Hurst]]\|[[Jack Hurst]]\|1}} vs {{pc\|[[Peter Godwin]]\|[[Jack Hurst]]\|8}}
		+	\| rowspan="2" class="cocsf" \| {{pc\|[[Jack Hurst]]\|\|1}} vs '''tba'''
		+	\| rowspan="4" class="cocf" \|
		+	\|-
		+	\| class="cocqf" \| {{pc\|[[Scott Gillies]]\|\|5}} vs {{pc\|[[Marcus Hares]]\|\|4}}
		+	\|-
		+	\| class="cocqf" \| {{pc\|[[Daniel Pati]]\|\|3}} vs {{pc\|[[Tom Rowell]]\|\|6}}
		+	\| rowspan="2" class="cocsf" \| '''tba''' vs {{pc\|[[Eoin Monaghan]]\|\|2}}
		+	\|-
		+	\| class="cocqf" \| {{pc\|[[Niall Young]]\|[[Eoin Monaghan]]\|7}} vs {{pc\|[[Eoin Monaghan]]\|[[Eoin Monaghan]]\|2}}
		+	\|}
		+
		+	::::[[User:The Doctor\|The Doctor]] 13:42, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:38, 13 December 2010
Line 33:		Line 33:
	: I would slightly favour the one which shows one player before both qualified. In particular, even before all eight seeds have had their positions confirmed, it's useful to show those who have been confirmed in the progress chart. For series 63 that didn't apply, because all eight finalists had their seeding positions confirmed simultaneously, but that doesn't always happen. But in other recent series I've done it that way, which was possible in those days because we didn't have such a Template.--[[User:Drawoh\|Drawoh]] 12:52, 13 December 2010 (UTC)		: I would slightly favour the one which shows one player before both qualified. In particular, even before all eight seeds have had their positions confirmed, it's useful to show those who have been confirmed in the progress chart. For series 63 that didn't apply, because all eight finalists had their seeding positions confirmed simultaneously, but that doesn't always happen. But in other recent series I've done it that way, which was possible in those days because we didn't have such a Template.--[[User:Drawoh\|Drawoh]] 12:52, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
	::I think I'd agree with Howard as well. The 2nd option does look slightly odd to me. [[User:JRTerrier24\|JRTerrier24]] 13:05, 13 December 2010 (UTC)		::I think I'd agree with Howard as well. The 2nd option does look slightly odd to me. [[User:JRTerrier24\|JRTerrier24]] 13:05, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
		+	:::Maybe '''tba''' instead of '''?''' would look better in option 2.--[[User:Drawoh\|Drawoh]] 13:38, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:05, 13 December 2010
Line 32:		Line 32:

	: I would slightly favour the one which shows one player before both qualified. In particular, even before all eight seeds have had their positions confirmed, it's useful to show those who have been confirmed in the progress chart. For series 63 that didn't apply, because all eight finalists had their seeding positions confirmed simultaneously, but that doesn't always happen. But in other recent series I've done it that way, which was possible in those days because we didn't have such a Template.--[[User:Drawoh\|Drawoh]] 12:52, 13 December 2010 (UTC)		: I would slightly favour the one which shows one player before both qualified. In particular, even before all eight seeds have had their positions confirmed, it's useful to show those who have been confirmed in the progress chart. For series 63 that didn't apply, because all eight finalists had their seeding positions confirmed simultaneously, but that doesn't always happen. But in other recent series I've done it that way, which was possible in those days because we didn't have such a Template.--[[User:Drawoh\|Drawoh]] 12:52, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
		+	::I think I'd agree with Howard as well. The 2nd option does look slightly odd to me. [[User:JRTerrier24\|JRTerrier24]] 13:05, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:52, 13 December 2010
Line 30:		Line 30:
	\|}		\|}
	Which do people prefer? -- [[User:Smjg\|smjg]] 12:30, 13 December 2010 (UTC)		Which do people prefer? -- [[User:Smjg\|smjg]] 12:30, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
		+
		+	: I would slightly favour the one which shows one player before both qualified. In particular, even before all eight seeds have had their positions confirmed, it's useful to show those who have been confirmed in the progress chart. For series 63 that didn't apply, because all eight finalists had their seeding positions confirmed simultaneously, but that doesn't always happen. But in other recent series I've done it that way, which was possible in those days because we didn't have such a Template.--[[User:Drawoh\|Drawoh]] 12:52, 13 December 2010 (UTC)