Talk:2020–21 UEFA Champions League knockout phase

Bracket

@Sb008: The more custom template {{16TeamBracket-2legs-except final}}, which has been used since 2008, works better in this case because:

• The aggregate score boxes are wider than the boxes for each leg and both scores are automatically bolded, allowing for a clearer viewing of the tie's overall scoreline.
• The final pairing is not abnormally long.
• The vertical spacing between each tie, as well as the headings, is not as large (caused in RoundN due to the spacing for match dates used in single-legged tournaments).
• Overall the bracket is more compact than RoundN.

RoundN is great for single-legged brackets, but does not work as well for two-legged ties. Brackets should not be converted to RoundN until the module can match the functionality of the template being replaced. S.A. Julio (talk) 11:56, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Your argument	My response
The aggregate score boxes are wider than the boxes for each leg and both scores are automatically bolded, allowing for a clearer viewing of the tie's overall scoreline	aggregate score boxes are not wider, they're with RoundN both (aggregate) score boxes are indeed bolded, creating a false impression, since bold is used for the winner, and therefore the aggregate score of the loser should not be bolded. Those fields are implemented as a table header, which they are obviously not. RoundN has a wider aggegrate score box giving a clear view of the overall score, and bolds only the winner
The final pairing is not abnormally long.	No it isn't, it's only long of you enter a long string in the date field. You "abuse" the round header field for that info. With RoundN you can set widths any way you like using |team_width= and |score_width=
The vertical spacing between each tie, as well as the headings, is not as large (caused in RoundN due to the spacing for match dates used in single-legged tournaments).	Finally something that's true, but it's not a difference which is bothering
Overall the bracket is more compact than RoundN.	Not it isn't, only verticle a little. It incorrectly bolds loser values

Disadvantages:

• You can not add dates
• Press "mobile view" in the menu completely at the bottom and see the "line" mess

All in all, except for the vertical compactness, you either use false arguments and praise disadvantages as advantages. Time you enter the modern age instead of using old fashioned templates. And as far as last season is concerned, why didn't you create a custom template? I guess all your (mostly false) objections aren't that important or you would have. --Sb008 (talk) 13:58, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

@Sb008: These tables are not exactly intuitive to design, so it makes no sense to create a custom template used for one season last year. Not sure why you are immediately jumping to the conclusion that I'm giving false points, tables may display differently based on browser, device and screen size. In the two browsers I tested, the first and second leg score boxes in {{16TeamBracket-2legs-except final}} are 15 pixels wide and the aggregate is 30 pixels wide, while in RoundN they all appear 30 pixels wide. In my browser it appears as though RoundN includes extra width for the final, as though the width for the first and second legs were still added (the width for the teams in 170 elsewhere, but 230 for the final). Overall, RoundN appears as 1098×596 pixels in my browser, while {{16TeamBracket-2legs-except final}} is only 977×548. The current style for two-legged tie brackets seems to be to bold both aggregate scores (not incorrect, but intentional), of course this could be open to discussion. S.A. Julio (talk) 16:27, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

@S.A. Julio: I tried 5 browsers (Chrome, Firefox, Edge, IE11, Tor), all with the same result

{{16TeamBracket-2legs-except final}}	3 equally wide boxes
{{#invoke:RoundN|function}} + |score-boxes=3	3 equally wide boxes
{{#invoke:RoundN|function}} + |score-boxes=2+sum	aggregate box wider than the other 2

Whatever problem there is with the team width, it's easy to solve, just use |style=white-space: nowrap; + |team_width=1 + |score_width=1 and you won't get it more compact.

Did you check what happens if you select "Mobile view"? --Sb008 (talk) 02:16, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

@S.A. Julio: You been plenty online, but no response. I guess that means there's no objective reason not to use "RoundN" --Sb008 (talk) 14:46, 22 March 2021 (UTC)