Talk:480 club

I won't revert the edit (for now anyway!) but I still think having 510 instead of 500 for the bold bit is crazy. Not that it really matters in the general scheme of things as the entire list from 480 is there anyway, and the bold bit doesn't really do much. (Personally I'd have 900 bold in the 800 club instead of 850 as well.) Anyway, my point was that you can't say that 480 is directly equivalent to 800 or that 510 is directly equivalent to 850 because of the different proportions of the round types in the different formats. Also "and 480/500 is a gap of 2.5 points per game, in no way notable" - Well going from 480 to 510 is 3.75 points a game. Where's the notability there? And by doing it this way, (with 480 and 510), you're working under the assumption that the 9-round format is just an afterthought from the 15-round format. Ignore the 15-round format for a minute. What are the milestone octotals for the 9-rounder? 480? Sure - it's 60 points per game. 500? Yes. It's 500. 510? No. There's nothing about it. Gevin 09:44, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, I might revert the edit (so that bold is for 500+) at some point if there's no argument presented against doing so here in the near future. Gevin 19:23, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Meant to get back to you. I don't really mind you changing this back as I have no argument about it other than making consistency between 9/15 conversions, this works both ways (List of 9-round joint scores over 120) and I intend to create things like Category:9 round wins by over 60, Category:9 round double 60 games, etc. The Doctor (talk | contribs) 00:43, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Why don't we compromise and do 490? JohnnyCanuck 00:44, 28 July 2021 (UTC)