Rugby league Template‑class | |||||||
|
I'm not sure what's been done with this template is a good idea. Super League seasons shouldn't be put under the same banner, as this was not just a change of name, but a change of organisation, winter to summer, etc. And dividing up all the pre-Super League seasons (into NRFU, RFL, etc.) I think is unnecessary because I understand that they were merely name changes, not organisational changes. I think the way it was before was fine.-- Jeff79 ( talk) 02:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Ok, for ease of navigation I think it's ok to include Super League seasons in this template. It's also appropriate if Super League is controlled in some way by the RFL which I believe it is? The NRL is a joint venture of the ARL and News Ltd. It's a similar situation with the RFL? Not much info about Super League's background/history in its article. So it could be said that Super League seasons are still, in a way, RFL seasons. However I'm still unwilling to bend on the right-side panel showing name changes with years in brackets. I really think this gives the false impression of major organisational changes rather than mere name changes. The identical kind of division between "Northern Rugby Football League" and "Rugby Football League" exists for the change to Super League. A navigation box is just that: purely for navigation. They're not meant to be informative and I understand that the more detail you put in them, the more you're pushing your luck witht their existence. I think two sections: one for RFL and one for SL is better.-- Jeff79 ( talk) 00:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
I set the year links up as a table rather than attempting to counter-balance partial rows using invisible text.
Also, the software doesn′t allow you to make a link appear as though it′s not a link. That is it provides no way to change the style attribute of a link. For some reason it does treat <font>
tags as a special case (although they are deprecated by W3) by sucking them inside the <a>
tag, giving us an appearance like
this which is ugly and barely readable on an LCD.
If we want to set them apart visually in the long term I recommend changing the background-color of the cell. ― AoV² 23:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Rugby league Template‑class | |||||||
|
I'm not sure what's been done with this template is a good idea. Super League seasons shouldn't be put under the same banner, as this was not just a change of name, but a change of organisation, winter to summer, etc. And dividing up all the pre-Super League seasons (into NRFU, RFL, etc.) I think is unnecessary because I understand that they were merely name changes, not organisational changes. I think the way it was before was fine.-- Jeff79 ( talk) 02:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Ok, for ease of navigation I think it's ok to include Super League seasons in this template. It's also appropriate if Super League is controlled in some way by the RFL which I believe it is? The NRL is a joint venture of the ARL and News Ltd. It's a similar situation with the RFL? Not much info about Super League's background/history in its article. So it could be said that Super League seasons are still, in a way, RFL seasons. However I'm still unwilling to bend on the right-side panel showing name changes with years in brackets. I really think this gives the false impression of major organisational changes rather than mere name changes. The identical kind of division between "Northern Rugby Football League" and "Rugby Football League" exists for the change to Super League. A navigation box is just that: purely for navigation. They're not meant to be informative and I understand that the more detail you put in them, the more you're pushing your luck witht their existence. I think two sections: one for RFL and one for SL is better.-- Jeff79 ( talk) 00:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
I set the year links up as a table rather than attempting to counter-balance partial rows using invisible text.
Also, the software doesn′t allow you to make a link appear as though it′s not a link. That is it provides no way to change the style attribute of a link. For some reason it does treat <font>
tags as a special case (although they are deprecated by W3) by sucking them inside the <a>
tag, giving us an appearance like
this which is ugly and barely readable on an LCD.
If we want to set them apart visually in the long term I recommend changing the background-color of the cell. ― AoV² 23:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC)