From AcaDec Scores and Information Center
Jump to navigationJump to search

Top scorers in states[edit]

Hey, so I was wondering if it would be a good idea if we had a sort of "all-time" high scorers for each state. Maybe 3 or 5 in each category or something, and maybe a group for all-time 9000's for the state. I know we already have this, but it's one giant list; maybe also putting it into the state pages somewhere will make it more accessible and easier to look at. Just a thought :)Stanley Tree 09:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Standardizing State Pages[edit]

The state pages all seem to be a mish mash of different styles. All of them are in table format, but what is included in those tables varies widely: Winner, State Champion, School, Region, Score, Nat'l Rank, Nationals Result, Rank at Nationals, Large School Champion, Medium School Champion, Small School Champion, Small School, Winner, City... you get the idea. Some have custom blue headers (AZ, IL, NE, RI) with the rest being standard wikitable sortable.

The point is... We need to standardize. It's ridiculous that these pages are represented in so many different ways. What I want is to start a discussion on a standard for the state's respective page and then we can work on a similar standard for regional pages.

In my opinion the standard header should contain the following (Keep in mind this is my opinion and people should discuss this and not take it as law. admin != God[citation needed])

Year State Champion State Score Place at Nationals Score at Nationals

Also, people like to have other things on the state page (infobox, state records, nifty header, summary box). I personally think it's a good idea to have the last three on each page, although the first one seems rather redundant (infobox on subpages - e.g. State/California/2008 - is a good idea. Infobox on the state page? Not a good idea.). Anything else (small/medium school champion, region, etc.) should be relegated to its respective subpage. Unless the medium school went to nationals(see: Friendswood 2004) or had a record high score, they shouldn't be on the state's main page (with the exception of 2001 where most states sent both a large and small school to nationals - see the Alaska page for a possible way to compensate for this problem).

So. Comments? Ideas? Criticism? Bashing? Hating? Loving? Warring? - Adam 00:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

  • I love it. But whoda thunk it? Seriously, Dig the idea of universal state pages and what not. Stanley Tree 02:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
    • is this header meant for State or for State/FJHD or State/hjbfdgy/fjanewbhf? I think standardization in terms of looks, word use, etc is ok BUT i really don't like to see wiki pages with a column of "TBD". having a super standard that contains lots of columns can easily lead to that problem so you see where i am coming from gil 05:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
      • From what I can tell, the header is meant for State/FJHD, and I can't see any more blank/unknown boxes than are currently in the pages. Perhaps, however, we should keep any additional info that does not fit in the boxes in a section below, so that we don't lose it to the respective individual pages. Secondly, we should use "Rank" instead of "Place", due to its more specific connotation to relative position versus general location. Also, do we want to revamp this State page? It seems a little bland...Collegebookworm
      • I've been thinking for quite a while about the need to revamp the State and Regional pages. And yes, I meant State/state, not State or State/state/year. And I don't care if we use "rank" or "place". Both are cool by me. In regard to the column of "TBD", that wouldn't exist. At most it would be two boxes in the first row (not counting the header) with a "TBD": the rank and score at nationals boxes. So, should we move on with this then? - Adam 04:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Old Talk[edit]

Long Pages[edit]

Perhaps we should consider splitting the State Results pages into two each (for the long ones only), one for Overall Results and one for Individual Event Results. This would keep pages such as State/California/2007 shorter than the current 3,000-4,000 lines of information (the source is even longer) that make tham hard to read-- FlowerMoundHS 10:04, 17 December 2007 (PST)

  • I understand what you're saying, but doing that would only reduce the length of most pages by a maximum of ~100 lines... So I think we should attempt a different way of breaking things up (if at all). Also, I think California is going to be the only case where this would be necessary due the inclusion of DI, DII, and DIII scores. So if we must split the page up, how about three separate pages for each division instead? - Adam 14:31, 17 December 2007 (PST)
  • For the example of California State 2007, it really just suffers from having too much crap in it. While that isn't bad, we definitely don't need two pages for one competition. Keeping school results and individual results on the same page is only fitting and proper. comment given by blooooo on 17:35, 17 December 2007 (PST)
  • I think things are fine as they are (stop yer whining) but if someone wants to move it I am fine with that. A good technical solution here would be to make subpages with the content and then transclude them to make the teaser page and the full page. You could also do the same with templates and etc and still put links in to the full page... this offers the most flexibility with the least redundancy. --gil 19:38, 17 December 2007 (PST)
  • Gil does not "have sex"; he transcludes his penis into a woman's vagina. comment given by blooooo on 20:03, 17 December 2007 (PST)
  • While the pages certainly are long, I feel that separating them apart into two or more separate pages is a some hideous bastardization even I don't want to do. Gil's idea, in theory, seems good. I'd advise a cautious test to see if people like the idea, and if people seem satisfied with the transcluding, we could adopt this as policy. KortEverettJackson 20:49, 17 December 2007 (PST)

Re: Long Pages[edit]

OK, well, I've thought of a possible change to include for these "Perfect State" and "Perfect Nationals" pages...

  • There is no point in linking to the "Honors", "Scholastic" and "Varsity" results when each is so short. Replacing the fourht-level headers ==== with bold indicators ' ' ' will remove all of the extra location links in the contents list - this alone shortens the page, according to my print preview, by 10%.
  • Also, the wiki program is alerting us that the page may be too long (just go to the page's edit tab):
WARNING: This page is 70 kilobytes long; some browsers may have problems editing pages approaching or longer than 32kb.
Please consider breaking the page into smaller sections. 


  • The purpose of the site is to provide quick access to scores. There *is* a point in linking to those scores because it minimizes scrolling. The current system is in no way broken and the page size warning is really irrelevant to this site (it has to do with keeping diffs and mysql queries under control and I can probably patch it to raise the warning limit). I strongly oppose these changes and won't let you make them without some type of site wide consensus (but there is no way to get one because all the constitution drafts are broken except the one I wrote a few weeks ago hahaha) gil 00:24, 4 January 2008 (PST)
    • I think sitewide consensus basically means Jon, Gil, me, Kort, and Bloooo so... If we were to vote I'd say it's all fine just the way it is. It's not like it's hard to scroll down. - Adam 01:14, 4 January 2008 (PST)

Nationwide compilations[edit]

I was wondering if we should put something like we do on the regionals pages for nationwide compilations on the state page like this: There are nationwide compilations of Round 3 scores here: 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012

or whether there was a reason that it was not on the state page. Nhscody 02:00, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Links to Round 3 nationwide are at the bottom, in the "Year-by-Year" table. Should we move it up, above "State-by-State"? You also make a good point about the differences. We want to be more consistent. We could have "Year-by-Year" on the regionals page too? Madcap 18:18, 22 March 2012 (UTC)Madcap

Yeah, I think making the pages the same would be a lot better. The only reason I mentioned that was because I went to the state page and was very confused when the links weren't on the top, as I knew there were state rankings and that is where I had always found the links before. 00:11, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

North Dakota[edit]

Also, I don't really understand what is trying to be said by this:

"Every state besides North Dakota is confirmed to have competed at least once. According to USAD1, North Dakota has not participated since at least 1999. Note that North Dakota might have competed in other years."

Every state besides North Dakota is confirmed to have competed at least once. Okay, I get that, but hasn't North Dakota been confirmed competing in 1999? I don't really understand why there is a need to have that on the main state page. Nhscody 02:05, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Many people are curious about which states participate, have participated in the past, or have never participated. They come here looking for that information. Maybe we should move it somewhere else? I'm rewording it - let me know if it looks better. Madcap 18:18, 22 March 2012 (UTC)Madcap

Yes, that makes much more sense. I'm not sure if I fully explained my confusion before. It sounded to me like North Dakota had never participated, but then it goes on to say it hasn't since 1999. 00:07, 23 March 2012 (UTC)