Records on the wiki

[Gevin Chapwell]

Many of the records on the wiki make no distinction between the new 15 and the old 15. These records should be kept distinct (I don't know why they ever weren't), so I'm declaring a project to sort this out. As well as the page I've just linked to, there are other affected pages too such as this. Actually the main table of that page doesn't really matter *that* much but there needs to be a separate evolution of the record for the new 15.

Also, this game is mentioned as having unofficially the record score over nine rounds. But it's a completely different format! The number of rounds does not determine the format and where a record should belong.

[Zarte Siempre]

I don't care.

[Gevin Chapwell]

I don't care.

You're a bad person.

[Jon Corby]

I care.

[Zarte Siempre]

I care.

You'd be a bad person either way.

[Jon Corby]

I care.

You'd be a bad person either way.

I don't care.

[Gevin Chapwell]

It's going to be quite fiddly to sort this out, especially in one go. So would anyone mind if I started to do this but left half-finished sentences? For example, it might currently say "The record score is x". I'll quickly be able to see which 15-round format that belong to and can put it in there. But then in the section for the other format I'll leave it as "The record score is". It would be easier to see what is missing if it's done that way.

[Gevin Chapwell]

It's going to be quite fiddly to sort this out, especially in one go. So would anyone mind if I started to do this but left half-finished sentences? For example, it might currently say "The record score is x". I'll quickly be able to see which 15-round format that belong to and can put it in there. But then in the section for the other format I'll leave it as "The record score is". It would be easier to see what is missing if it's done that way.

That's a green light then.

[Gevin Chapwell]

I've made a start on this. I've noticed that some of the stuff was out-of-date anyway, and I haven't updated it all.

[Charlie Reams]

Thanks for fixing this. If you're likely to leave pages under construction for a while, it might be useful to define a template saying so and use that everywhere. That also makes it easier for you to find the unfinished pages later.

[Phil Reynolds]

I care.

Should have gone to Specsavers.

[Gevin Chapwell]

Rather than start a new thread, I'll post here. On the front page of the wiki, one of the links at the top is to All series and it links to this terrible page, rather than this much nicer one. But I think you need special powers to make changes to the front page, which I don't have, so does anyone that can want to edit it?

Also it has a link to "previous series", which links to the one series immediately before the current one, but I think it's ambiguous since "series" can be plural as well as singular, and "previous" doesn't just mean the one immediately before. So this could do with being changed as well.

[Johnny Canuck]

Rather than start a new thread, I'll post here. On the front page of the wiki, one of the links at the top is to All series and it links to this terrible page, rather than this much nicer one. But I think you need special powers to make changes to the front page, which I don't have, so does anyone that can want to edit it?

Also it has a link to "previous series", which links to the one series immediately before the current one, but I think it's ambiguous since "series" can be plural as well as singular, and "previous" doesn't just mean the one immediately before. So this could do with being changed as well.

Nice catch - have redirected the “All series” link to Series Winners. Would “Most recent series” be suitable to replace “Previous series” or is that just ambiguous again?

[Gevin Chapwell]

Rather than start a new thread, I'll post here. On the front page of the wiki, one of the links at the top is to All series and it links to this terrible page, rather than this much nicer one. But I think you need special powers to make changes to the front page, which I don't have, so does anyone that can want to edit it?

Also it has a link to "previous series", which links to the one series immediately before the current one, but I think it's ambiguous since "series" can be plural as well as singular, and "previous" doesn't just mean the one immediately before. So this could do with being changed as well.

Nice catch - have redirected the “All series” link to Series Winners. Would “Most recent series” be suitable to replace “Previous series” or is that just ambiguous again?

Thanks for making the change. Maybe "last series" could work?

[Johnny Canuck]

Rather than start a new thread, I'll post here. On the front page of the wiki, one of the links at the top is to All series and it links to this terrible page, rather than this much nicer one. But I think you need special powers to make changes to the front page, which I don't have, so does anyone that can want to edit it?

Also it has a link to "previous series", which links to the one series immediately before the current one, but I think it's ambiguous since "series" can be plural as well as singular, and "previous" doesn't just mean the one immediately before. So this could do with being changed as well.

Nice catch - have redirected the “All series” link to Series Winners. Would “Most recent series” be suitable to replace “Previous series” or is that just ambiguous again?

Thanks for making the change. Maybe "last series" could work?

No problem.

“Last series” actually was what it said before - but I actually changed it because “last series” could also be ambiguously read as “the final series” (or the final series in a set) by people not in the know.

I need to update the target of that link every series anyway, so maybe I’ll just use the number (Series 81, and possibly Series 82 instead of Current series too for consistency) instead.

Damn zero-plural words.

[Gevin Chapwell]

I hadn't noticed the joint score record page previously, because I think it's not linked to on the records page, so I've separated out the scores there. Also taken out the Cats game from the 9-round version.

[Gevin Chapwell]

It is also slightly weird that it's joint scores over 200 rather than 200 or more, so a game needs 201 to make the list. (Or 121 in 9-rounders.)

[Johnny Canuck]

FYI, I made that page originally and set it up as "over 200" and not "200 or more" because the page for scores under 30 also worked that way (30 was excluded). We could change it but IMO we should change them all.

[Gevin Chapwell]

FYI, I made that page originally and set it up as "over 200" and not "200 or more" because the page for scores under 30 also worked that way (30 was excluded). We could change it but IMO we should change them all.

I think that would be preferable to how it is now. But having said that, I don't think it would be completely insane to have under 30 but also 200 or more. If you're grouping in e.g. 10s, you'd have 0-9, 10-19, 20-29 etc. So 30 (and 200) would be "bottoms", whereas 29 would be a "top".

[Ian Volante]

So 30 (and 200) would be "bottoms", whereas 29 would be a "top".

This place is becoming more like Grindr every day.

[Gevin Chapwell]

Bump. It makes sense to have 200 or more because reaching a landmark (200) is the notable thing. Under 30 is correct because not reaching a landmark (30) is the thing. I might edit the pages. Not sure how to find all the games, but giving them the right title would be a start and it can be filled in later.