Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Calgary Flames draft picks/archive2


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by User:Scorpion0422 20:31, 29 November 2008.

List of Calgary Flames draft picks
previous FLC (20:37, 2 September 2008)

I am resubmitting this list as a featured candidate after spending some time reworking its layout following comments at the first FLC. I believe that this time, the list is ready for featured status, as it is complete, well laid out, factually accurate and cited, and has plenty of relevant images. All comments will be addresed. Thanks, Resolute 23:34, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I went just went quickly through the article, I came up with these comments that should lead to a Withdrawal of this nomination. --  SRE.K.A nnoyomous .L. 24 [c] 00:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * The table is not sorted properly. Use the template, Template:sort and 09 would look like this, 09.
 * Did not mention any draft trades. There are example of these on List of Los Angeles Lakers first and second round draft picks and Toronto Raptors draft history.
 * I am going to discuss with WP:NHL to see whether or not these lists should be renamed to "(NHL team) draft history".
 * Not at all sure why this nomination should be withdrawn. Really, your concerns are fairly simple to address, albeit somewhat time consuming.  I'm adding the Sort template, and the article was originally called Calgary Flames draft history.  It was moved to List of... to match naming conventions agreed to by the hockey project.  As far as listing trades, that simply is not practical for 30 years of a draft that has averaged 10 rounds.  I'd have to look it up (using a non-reliable source), but I'd bet the Flames have easily made 50-100 trades involving draft picks in their history.  That simply is not practical to list. Resolute 05:40, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I think putting up trades related to how some draft picks were taken are very practical to list. --  SRE.K.A nnoyomous .L. 24 [c] 06:04, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Two problems I see: First, since it is impractical to list all, I am left with picking and choosing which trades to mention.  That introduces WP:POV concerns.  Second, this is a list of draft picks, not a complete draft history.  Where listing trades works for a very small draft like that the NBA holds, it does not for a larger draft like the NHL.  Similarly, a full list of draft picks, which works here, would be completely impossible for baseball.  Probably the most I could reasonably do is expand on the most recent draft in the lead, adding mention of trades that occurred for that draft. Resolute 16:32, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

At the moment, I reluctantly oppose. My reluctance stems from the fact that I really like the visual elements of the list, but I cannot support a list with so many shortcomings right now. KV5 •  Squawk box  •  Fight on!  01:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok. I've completed adding proper sorting function for the players, fixed how the Supplemental Draft picks sort, and managed to push the goalie stats out of the way when other stats are sorted descending.  I believe I have addressed all of your concerns, save the reasoning behind the Supplemental draft, which I am searching for a ref. Resolute 00:58, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Per the completion of my concerns, I've withdrawn my oppose, but remain currently neutral until completion of all issues. I will re-evaluate the total list in 2 to 3 days. KV5  •  Squawk box  •  Fight on!  14:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I've simplified the statement on the Supplemental Draft and sourced its existence, as it is proving surprisingly difficult to find an online explanation of the reasoning behind the draft. I'll have to head to the library to check some old newspapers for a source, but that will be a few days yet.  In the meantime, I hope this suffices, and I believe I have at least tried to address all concerns all three reviewers thus far have expressed. Resolute 01:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Regarding the sorting, when you sort by Nationality and Games Played, there are still some issues. There are a chunk of players at the bottom that are still out of order. I haven't tested all columns, but there may be other issues. KV5  •  Squawk box  •  Fight on!  00:38, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I've fixed the sorting by nationality - whomever added the sort template to the flags in the entry draft table did not do so for the supplemental draft table, which I did not notice when I merged the two. I've had no problems at all sorting by GP, A, Pts or PIM.   There was an odd intermittant issue with the G column, but I believe I have resolved that with yet more sort templates. Resolute 16:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Try sorting by points, assists, PIM, etc. The sorting doesn't work. The players with "0" are randomly scattered about throughout the blank spaces (which can be remedied by setting blank spaces to sort as negative 1), and the goalie stats sort randomly in that portion as well. KV5  •  Squawk box  •  Fight on!  13:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I can do that, however this would greatly increase the size of the article for little to no benefit. I'm not sure a 100k article size with 50k of that being sort templates is ideal.  I'll see what I can do for this, however. Resolute 16:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Done, and it only added about 10k to the chart size. The goalie stats seem to all be sticking together towards the end fo the numbered columns.  Hopefully this resolves these sorting issues...  I don't think the sort template ever really envisioned such a complicated table, heh. Resolute 20:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Still some issues. Numbers are sorting "1, 10, 100, 2", etc.. Adding hidden sortkeys will fix that. KV5  •  Squawk box  •  Fight on!  23:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I've tried sorting the numbers in every combination I can think of in both IE and Firefox and have not been able to duplicate it. I have seen that happen before, but it seems to be very infrequent at most, and more than likely a bug with the sorting templates themselves than anything else. Resolute 04:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * ←I sorted by assists (only 1 click), and the numbers are still sorting in logical order rather than numerical. That doesn't help anyone but a computer. I tried it at work on IE and at home on Firefox, and it's the same both places. KV5  •  Squawk box  •  Fight on!  13:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Support — Chris!  c t 23:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment The list is too wide on a standard resolution monitor, so the images are lined up to the right with white space to the left and the list starts below the images. Doesn't look very good unless you have a widescreen. —Krm500 (Communicate!) 00:11, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * What resolution and browser are you running? I've checked on a 22" widescreen, 19" 4x3 and a 14.1 laptop screen in both Firefox and IE and don't see any problems. Resolute 16:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm, playing around a bit, I can see what you are talking about.  But this only seems to happen at a smaller resolution when the chart is unable to shrink any further to fit the images.   Given there is no %width parameter in the image syntax, there isn't any great way for me to fix this for you, aside from forcing the images even smaller than 150px. I've gone down to 130px to help reduce the odds of this happening, but I don't really want to go any smaller, as it begins to degrade the quality for monitors on higher resolutions.  Hope this helps. Resolute 17:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I my self have no problem with it since I have a widescreen monitor, but I usually construct and asses lists based on 1024x768 resolution since it is the most common resolution world wide. You managed to squeeze it in now, good work. —Krm500 (Communicate!) 01:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Interesting you had issues, as that is the resolution of my LCD screen, which displayed fine. Resolute 02:53, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Comments by SatyrTN
 * The sortability of the "Notes" column is not necessary. Put 'class="unsortable"' in the attributes of the header field to remove.
 * Probably not a bad idea.


 * The sortability of the "Team (League)" column is suspect. I can't sort by league, only by team.  And the team names are often "City Teamname (League)" which means I'm really sorting by city.  I don't see the usefulness.
 * I had been considering this, and was thinking of moving the league into its own column.


 * The "Rnd" column needs to make use of the sort function, since right now "10" is coming before "2".
 * I have not been able to duplicate this problem in that column.  Unfortunately, it seems that I am going to have to wrap every single cell in a sort template as a result of limitations with the template itself.


 * I'm not sure how to fix this, but there's no way to get back to the initial sort order. Try sorting by a couple different columns, then go back to year.  Actually, I think I *do* know a way - use the sort function on the "Year" column with a combination of year-rnd-pick.  So Denis Cyr's "Year" entry would be.
 * Reload the page, I guess.  I am not aware of any reset option for a sorted table, and the documentation on the templates offer nothing.


 * [[Image:Symbol unrelated.svg|15px]] Weak Oppose until these issues have been addressed - I'll re-review later. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 18:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I will look to address your comments soon, likely tomorrow as they may require a small measure of time. Thanks, Resolute 21:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.