Talk:Utah Warriors

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Rugby union Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rugby union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of rugby union 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.Rugby unionWikipedia:WikiProject Rugby unionTemplate:WikiProject Rugby unionrugby union articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. United States: Utah Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Utah (assessed as Low-importance).

Why does this team have a page, when they never actually played an official match, but real teams which have been around for decades have their pages removed from Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.47.28.222 (talk) 19:57, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The team is notable as it did play in RSL during the 2011 season. CUA 27 (talk) 17:54, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110727122039/http://www.wearerugby.com/news/articles/new-team-joins-super-league to http://www.wearerugby.com/news/articles/new-team-joins-super-league

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:12, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This MLR team is a different entity than the team with the same name that played in Super League several years previously. CUA 27 (talk) 01:28, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I plan to split this article into two separate articles. One for the 2011 RSL team, one for the 2018 MLR team. They are different teams, different owners, playing in different leagues. CUA 27 (talk) 18:11, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Overuse of color in the background of the season summary impairs the page. It is not necessary to encode every row of match results in traffic light colors.

Even for readers with normal vision this reduces contrast and clarity, and it also reduces

Removing this extra color to use white on green instead of red on green provides better contrast. -- Ham105 (talk) 19:10, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@

MOS:CONTRAST and the desire to make sure all pages meet it, but both backgrounds should be fine (see contrast ratios for the red and green). It is also the common way most team season articles are used in the US and Canada (see expanded templates in 2018 Los Angeles Dodgers season#Game log, 2017–18 Golden State Warriors season#Game log, 2018 New England Patriots season#Regular season, and 2017–18 Washington Capitals season#Schedule and results for use in each of the Big 4 leagues). It also helps differentiate the losses from the cancelled/postponed games. On the other hand, reading comprehension should also be assumed and no colors are needed at all and is why I have no opinion if they are removed. Perhaps @DylanFaraci98: has a different opinion? Yosemiter (talk) 21:46, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

@Yosemiter: If you look at every other teams page, in the MLR, they are exactly like what I have been adding to the season summary table. I think it would be better if all of the pages were a like and looked exactly the same when it comes to the season summary tables. DylanFaraci98 (talk) 18:23, 12 February 2019 (EST)

@DylanFaraci98: I believe you mean to reply to User:Ham105, not me. I am the one who added them to the MLR pages in the first place (when I overhauled all the articles to more closely match the Wikipedia:Manual of Style and other North American team articles), so you do not need to explain to me that they are there. Ham is the one who feels the pages would be better without them. I merely pinged you so you could state your opinion when you re-added them after Ham removed them. This discussion is part of the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and is a normal procedure. Yosemiter (talk) 23:48, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(P.S. @

edit warring, which could eventually lead to a block. Thank you, Yosemiter (talk) 23:55, 12 February 2019 (UTC))[reply

]

Hi Yosemiter and DylanFaraci98. Yes, this is about poor contrast for win and loss. I hadn't mentioned legibility of the text. Removing the red provides better win/loss contrast and improves the differentiation even for normal vision. This is applicable to other MLR articles or further afield. Some other comments:

• I note the examples provided have tables collapsed. Perhaps they were recognized as a visual blight that should be hidden. More seriously, though, there's no requirement for a traffic light color coding of game results. Less is more.
• Should this data really be in the Utah Warriors team article? The concise season summary is already included on the page, and the match details are covered on last year's season page.

Thanks -- Ham105 (talk) 04:10, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:GNG-notable enough to have team season pages. It seems logical to remove the individual match tables on the team pages.

As I previously stated, I have no horse in this race. I came across some very sloppy team articles, with little knowledge of rugby, but applied the MOS standards to the dates/dashes and added uniformity to other major leagues in North America. I have done what I could to try and fix the articles, but I have no desire to maintain them. Hopefully someone just uses whatever becomes the consensus format for the MLR teams in the future. Yosemiter (talk) 04:48, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

@Yosemiter: You did make improvements and that's appreciated. My discussion here only goes to the match results table data and its color coding. Several side issues have been raised (the ownership of visual blight is all mine, but I had hoped the "more seriously, though" rider showed it was intended as humor). Let's set aside navboxes, the separate question of text legibility (which your links posted above address), WP:OTHER, etc, and reach a consensus. We do agree on many points.

My preferred outcome is also to remove the individual match tables on the team pages in favor of the summary stats and prose. That bypasses the color coding question. Two preseasons now, plus two regular seasons and this will keep growing. The tables now take up about half the article spaces and, while the team pages aren't yet overly large, this is disproportionate for what is meant to be an encyclopedic article.DylanFaraci98, do you have other thoughts on this? -- Ham105 (talk) 07:13, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Yosemiter: and @Ham105: could we add the exhibition match results prior to the regular season results since the 2018 or 2019 MLR seasons are covering the entire league and not individual teams. DylanFaraci98 (talk) 09:43, 13 February 2019 (EST)

@Yosemiter, Ham105, and DylanFaraci98: When we use coloured backgrounds in tables, we need to take note of two accessibility issues:

1. Are we trying to convey information using colour alone? Obvious any information conveyed solely by colour is unavailable to visitors using screen readers and visitors who are colour-blind. In this case, however, each winning match is identified as winning in the text of the table row, and similarly for each losing match. So you are not denying any visitor the information.
2. Can the vast majority of visitors read the text comfortably? To ascertain whether the text will stand out enough against a coloured background, I recommend using Snook's Colour Contrast Check and try to pick colours that pass all of the eight tests. The good news is that the colours used (#CCFFCC and #FFCCCC) pass the tests when using black text. The bad news is that any links in the table don't quite pass the "Colour Difference" test – at least using the standard #002BB8 from the monobook skin. It's slightly worse for the red background when visited links are displayed. If you wanted to ensure that you pass all the tests, you would have to go to #ECFFEC and #FFECEC, which are rather anaemic pastel shades – some poorly adjusted monitors may display them as very close to white.

In short, there are better background colour choices than the ones presently used if you want to maximise the number of visitors who can read the text comfortably. --RexxS (talk) 15:44, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@