Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Nelson F.C. seasons/archive1


 * 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 promoted by Giants2008 21:30, 15 December 2009.

List of Nelson F.C. seasons

 * Nominator(s): -- Big  Dom  12:15, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it properly covers the topic and meets the featured list criteria. This is my first FL nomination, so I look forward to your comments, and thanks in advance for your reviews. -- Big  Dom  12:15, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Support.—NMajdan &bull;talk 18:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments
 * Re sorting: FL criterion #4: Structure says a list "includes, where helpful, section headings and table sort facilities" (my italics). Personally, I can't think of any reason why it might be helpful to sort a season list, which is basically a timeline, into another order. It does no harm, but it seems pretty pointless. Struway2 (talk)
 * Made the column unsortable.
 * Sorry, that's me failing to make myself clear as usual. It was the idea of having this particular type of table sortable at all that I was ranting about. If you and other reviewers think it should be, then obviously you need the season column to be sortable as well, so you can get the thing back to the proper order without having to refresh the page. I've changed it back. Struway2 (talk)
 * Ah, I get you now. I totally agree with you but, as you can see further up this nomination, after his comment from NMajdan me and him spent quite a while changing the whole format of the table to make it sortable. -- Big  Dom
 * Perhaps the sort of lists that NMajdan has been working with are the sort where it is helpful to have them sortable :-) Discographies and filmographies aren't expected to be sortable, presumably by prior consensus, nor are episode lists, which are actually quite similar in structure to a season list. As you pointed out above, prior consensus for season lists is that they aren't sortable, and I don't think requirements have changed in that regard. However, please don't think I'm trying to get you to change it back to unsortable (unless you actually want to... :-) Struway2 (talk)
 * To be fair, I'd really rather not spend ages changing it all back now... Like you say, there's no harm in having it sortable, so we may as well keep it sortable. -- Big  Dom
 * Comment Please sign your comments. I can't make head or tail of what's being said if there is no date or username to associate with the comment. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:41, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it was clearer before I capped the other comments: the intervening comments are by the nominator, cheers, Struway2 (talk) 07:46, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Signed mine as well just for clarity. -- Big  Dom  08:29, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

{{hidden/FC|headerstyle=background:#ccf;|contentstyle=border:1px #ccf solid; padding:10px;|header=Resolved comments from Struway2 (talk) 10:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)|content=* FL criterion #3a suggests that "where appropriate, it has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about the items". I know some of us go a bit over the top where annotations are concerned, but is there really nothing even remotely interesting, quirky, or needing explanation?
 * Added about 20 footnotes, I think it's a lot better now
 * so do I. I added references to 3 or 4 of the notes, the ones which weren't wholly sourced either to the list itself or to the general reference
 * Thanks a lot

* like for instance, why the 2008–09 division isn't bolded despite the different name...
 * Included as one of the 20-ish notes


 * Seasons 1899–1900 and 1999–2000 should be displayed as such, not as 1899–00 (per WP:YEAR)
 * Done


 * Could you put the † and ‡ into the appropriate colour boxes in the key, in with the words they represent.
 * Already in the key, but done anyway
 * I know they were, but as they're the accessible alternative to the coloured boxes, they needed to be together.
 * OK, fair enough.


 * The contents of the table don't seem to be sourced to anything.
 * They used to be sourced to the main external link, until I changed it due to a comment further up this nomination. I can easily put it back if you want...
 * WP:EL says that sites used as sources for the article should be cited inline or appear in a references section, not as an external link. What people tend to do is have General and Specific subsections in the References section, as at this or this.
 * Changed the references section to General and Specific


 * The image caption isn't a complete sentence so shouldn't have a full stop (per MOS:CAPTIONS}
 * Removed full stop.

cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your time, -- Big  Dom  12:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)}}

Support. List now meets criteria. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Support if the top-scorer details genuinely aren't recorded anywhere. For the record, I also fail to see why a table of this type needs to be sortable -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.