Talk:2014–15 National Youth League (Australia)

"Accessdate" parameter
I'm not sure why the "accessdate" parameters are being removed from the references templates like with this edit. While it's true they are optional, they do provide useful information that shows when a link to a source was last accessed (and verified) and are pretty standard when using citation templates because they can be helpful in preventing link rot. Is this something specific to WP:FIA or one of it's sub-projects? Just for reference, "accessdates" are being provided in similar articles such as Central Coast Mariners FC (a featured article) and List of Brisbane Roar FC players (a featured list) as well as good articles Australia 31–0 American Samoa, Mark Bresciano, James Meredith (footballer), and Patrick Kisnorbo. All of the aforementioned articles fall under the purview of "WP:FIA" so there doesn't seem to be a project-wide consensus against the parameter's use. Is this simply personal preference having to do with the number of references or is there some policy-based reason for not wanting to add the paramter? Just curious because I've never seen such a parameter removed before as "unnecessary". Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 21:46, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * What useful information does accessdate give apart from cluttering the page? How does it prevent link rot? --SuperJew (talk) 07:26, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The "accessdate" parameter lets other editors when a link was last accessed and when the information in the link was last verified, so if the link goes dead (which they often do), someone trying to repair a dead link can use the last accessdate given to help find an appropriate archived version of the link. As I wrote above, it's pretty commonly used when citing web pages. It's also used in quite a few good and featured articles which would not be the case at all if it had no value. Just for reference, the parameter is being used in 2013-14 A-League National Youth League, 2012–13 A-League National Youth League and 2011–12 A-League National Youth League so at least one other editor felt it added helpful information. I'm not sure why you feel that something so widely used on Wikipedia is just clutter. - Marchjuly (talk)
 * It's clutter. utter bs. if you really feel so strongly about preventing link rot, use web archived vesions. --SuperJew (talk) 09:07, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If it was simply clutter it wouldn't be used at all in any Wikipedia articles, least of all not in featured ones. If it's simply bs, then other editors would be removing it in mass. Why aren't you removing it from other articles when you edit them if you are so strongly against its use? - Marchjuly (talk) 09:29, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You didn't actually answer the claim, but rather deflected it on me. politics 101 --SuperJew (talk) 09:48, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what claim you're referring to. I already stated how accessdates can be helpful. Such information makes it easy for editors to know when a online reference was last checked. If the link should then go dead, the accessdate can help editors searching for an archive version of the link, especially when multiple archive versions exist. This helps prevent link rot. Even if an archive version of a link is added, the accessdate still lets others know when the archive version was last verified. - Marchjuly (talk) 10:07, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * so what? that doesn't help. --SuperJew (talk) 10:22, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not a matter of life or death for me and certainly not worth debating ad nauseum. Just a difference of opinion among two editors which is not all that rare when it comes to Wikipedia. Happy editing. Peace. - Marchjuly (talk) 10:28, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Excessive wikilinking?
This article seems to have an excessive amount of wikilinking. WP:OVERLINK says that "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, a link may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead." I can understand wikilinking to the same article two or maybe three times, but the some of the team names and city names are being wikilinked at each mention which seems way too much and contrary to MOS:LINK. For example, Adelaide United FC Youth is wikilinked 28 times. I see that templates are being used a lot throughout the article and these templates are automatically generating the links, but wikilinking for practically each mention makes the article seem like one big blue link in my opinion and is more of a distraction than an aid to the reader. Not sure why the use of the templates isn't being deprecated to at least the first mention of a particular team or city within the same table or section. Is this style something common among WP:FIA articles or lists? Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 22:06, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * It's common in all sports tournaments. Say if it is round 15 right now and I as a user am looking at that round, why should I scroll back to round 1 to click through to teams/players/etc.? --SuperJew (talk) 07:28, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I can see when pages are quite long how multiple wikilinks can be helpful, but why does the same article need to be wikilinked multiple times in the same section. Why does each team need to be wikilinked twice in 2014–15 A-League National Youth League or the same city twice (sometimes right above the other) in 2014–15 A-League National Youth League and 2014–15 A-League National Youth League, etc? You don't need to do any scrolling to find a wikilink for Sydney or Melbourne located one lines above or below in the "Teams" table. - Marchjuly (talk) 08:39, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It's the norm of how it's done in sports season articles and stuff moves around in those tables during the seasons. --SuperJew (talk) 09:08, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Positions by round
The wikilinks in the 2014–15 A-League National Youth League table all lead to articles for the parent club and not the youth club. Is this by design? The article is discussing the 2014-2015 season of the youth league so it's fair to assume that the table is intended to reflect the standings for each team in that league upon completion of a particular round. If that's the case, then the links are misleading, aren't they? - Marchjuly (talk) 22:11, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter that much as the it is at the end of the day the same team. Players from the youth can be promoted to the senior team, and a few senior players can play for the youth team. It was probably done because of the template set-up. But no, it is not misleading as you say. Maybe if you would have spent some time around here before criticizing everything you would know what's what and have less questions. --SuperJew (talk) 07:31, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the added clarification. I understand there's a relationship between the parent club and the youth club, but since the article is about the youth team it seems that it the wikilinks in the table should at least wikilink to the respective articles about the youth team per WP:SPECIFICLINK. Moreover, I just made a comment about the links and the table and was not criticizing any editor or any edits. - Marchjuly (talk) 08:07, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Pseudo-headings
I saw this edit, but just thought you should know about WP:PSEUDOHEAD. If you made the change because the TOC was too large, then that the TOC size can be limited. Pseudo-headings can cause accessibility issues for some readers, perhaps there's an another option in this case if you feel the level-3 headings are cumbersome. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:08, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand the difference between ;pseudo-header and pseudo-header --SuperJew (talk) 22:11, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not completely sure as well, but I think it might have to do with the way the syntax is read by certain devices. If the intent is for the section to be read as a individual section, then the device will not read it as such with the semi-colon markup or bold markup; however, if it's just meant to be read as bold type, then it just treats it as another word. I'll see if I can find out more specific by asking at WP:VP/T. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:13, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Some of the years were formatted that way, some were not. Many other articles in australian soccer (e.g. W-League) are formatted that way.  The main reason was to make the TOC more meaningful. Matilda Maniac (talk) 06:58, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You can use TOC limit to reduce how many sub-sections are listed in the TOC. If the other articles you mentioned are using pseudo-heads as well, then maybe they need to reassessed and then fixed if necessary. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:19, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Fixtures should not be displayed per discussions. Kante4 (talk) 08:21, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

It's quite simple. ;pseudoheader is actually a type of list, namely a description aka definition list. So if you use a screenreader, this will say: "Begin list, term pseudo header, end of list", which is undesirable. Use header syntax for headers, lists for lists, and bold for emphasis. As the accessibility guidelines discuss: Using a pseudo header should be rare as it is always bad. But, since people keep using them, if you do use a pseudo header then use bolding to achieve a purely visual effect. Using bolding will not make it clear to screenreader users that something is a header, but at least it won't tell them it's a list either, which is way worse. —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 09:29, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I've restored the version with headings to improve the accessibility, and separately added to show how we can limit the size of the table of contents. --RexxS (talk) 11:43, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It's worse than that; the semicolon markup, which some people have been abusing as an alternative to Boldface, opens a bogus description list. It's no different from abuse of table markup around things that are not tabular data. "Round 2" followed by a football data table is not a list, it's a heading followed by a football data table. It should be marked up as a heading, and if the table of contents is looking too long, then limit the depth of the ToC, as Marchjuly says.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  11:55, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Similar changes were made to 2013–14 A-League National Youth League and other individual season articles. I'm assuming that those can be changed back as well without any discussion on their individual article talk pages, right? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:54, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * A lot of editors simply aren't aware that visually impaired people can and do read Wikipedia using assistive technology. Once they understand that what they see is not necessarily what a blind visitor would hear, they usually won't object when you modify content to make it easier or less annoying for those visitors. I can't guarantee it of course, but fixing similar problems on other pages – mentioning WP:PSEUDOHEAD in your edit summary – really shouldn't be controversial at all. HTH --RexxS (talk) 09:59, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The changes I saw were also made by Matilda Maniac, so cleaning them up should not be an issue unless they feel more discussion is needed in this thread. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:11, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * A lot of editors simply aren't aware that visually impaired people can and do read Wikipedia using assistive technology. Once they understand that what they see is not necessarily what a blind visitor would hear, they usually won't object when you modify content to make it easier or less annoying for those visitors. I can't guarantee it of course, but fixing similar problems on other pages – mentioning WP:PSEUDOHEAD in your edit summary – really shouldn't be controversial at all. HTH --RexxS (talk) 09:59, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The changes I saw were also made by Matilda Maniac, so cleaning them up should not be an issue unless they feel more discussion is needed in this thread. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:11, 5 December 2017 (UTC)