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

Comment from Killervogel5

First, let me say that this is a very impressive list, and that I've looked at it during both of its previous FL reviews. I also see a whole lot of things about this list that I really appreciate as a writer and reviewer, namely the inclusion of so many great free images. However, and I hate to be a buzzkill, I do see one major issue. It has been the convention in recent sports FLs to use em-dashes for all blanks that are otherwise unrepresented by zeroes. A quick fix (which I use a lot) might be to copy and paste into a text editor like Word or WordPad and use a find/replace to get all those dashes in there. If there's a way I can help you get that put together, let me know. Other than that, I think it looks great, but that issue should still be addressed. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 17:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I concur. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:28, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree as well, however I have left off the emdashes due to technical limitations. Placing an emdash in those cells would break numeric sorting, instead causing the table to sort alphabetically. Thus, 91 would sort ahead of 900, etc. This is one of the technical issues with the sorting functionality that I have spent a ridiculous amount of time fighting. I honestly don't think the people that wrote the sorting templates considered such a complicated table. I personally do not consider it to be a major issue, however. Reso lute 00:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the OTL column provides a good example of the problems I face when using en or em dashes. I'm going to have to remove those dashes, but I'll leave them as is for now so that you can see what I mean. Thanks, Reso lute 00:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They sort fine for me. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Odd. I'm having it sort dashes, then blank spaces, then numbers. Anyway, I guess that isn't the best example given that there are no double digit numbers anyway. Try the exmaple I have set up using the 1980 draft at User:Resolute/Sandbox#Sorting_test to see what I am talking about with dashes breaking sorting. Reso lute 01:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another option (the one I always use} is to use the sort template to force the em-dashes to sort as the number -1. That way they are together and before actual zeroes. Example: {{sort|-1|—}} KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 01:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I could help with this; we (Res, Kv5 and me) could take a few columns and implement sorting. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Resolute, what browser are you using? I am using Firefox 3 and the sorting in your sandbox works beautifully. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both Firefox 3 and IE7 behave the way I describe, and other reviewers complained of sorting breaking in the last FLC. Basically, when I use the sort, the goal column ends up sorting as 1, 193, 2, 3, 366, 450, 895, —. I have tried templating the dashes as KM5 suggests, with intermittent problems resulting. To test it out agian, however, I've made this change and copied the entire table to User:Resolute/Sorting test. Do you guys see any sorting issues such as I describe? Actually, that isn't even workable, given that using the sort templates brings the chart to 200kb. Try this version: User:Resolute/Sorting test2. Reso lute 03:00, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am truly befuddled, I use Firefox 3.0.1 and the sorting is working. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I could explain it then. In some cases, it works for me. In others the dashes and 0s get mixed up, in others it alpha sorts. If you two both find the test2 subpage works, however, I'll move it over and accept that it is a browser config issue, perhaps? Reso lute 03:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just now tested on IE 7, it works there also. Perhaps this is a computer thing? Dabomb87 (talk) 03:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did encounter some sorting issues. I sorted by a column and it was right, then I tried to invert it by sorting it again and it went all crazy. Keep in mind that, for columns like that with 1, 2, etc. significant digits beyond zero, hidden sortkeys are needed to bring the numbers into the same base. For examples, since the largest number in the games played column is 4 digits, a 2-digit number like 10 would need to be as such: {{sort|0010|10}}. Three-digit: {{sort|0395|395}}. Et cetera. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 03:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not experiencing any of the problems described by you two, on IE or Firefox (both 3.0.1 and 3.0.5). I think we might need to take this discussion off the FLC. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:34, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Hope you don't mind, KV5. Feel free to revert back to the main FLC if you like. I would have to say that wrapping every cell in a sort template is not at all feasable - doing that for the emdashes alone makes the chart 200kb. At this point, it works when using just blank spaces rather than dashes. While it may be ideal to use the dashes instead of blank spaces, I do not believe that it can be implemented effectively given current limitations in the sorting functionality. And this is with the understanding (and confusion) that it seems to be working for Dabomb. I've brought questions up surrounding the sorting functionality (including at VP:Technical) with no response. I would appreciate any suggestions you guys have on how to make the chart work better... Reso lute 03:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a deal breaker. I mean, I want the em dashes, but in the end, it's not a big deal and I would support without them. If possible, let's see if we can fix things. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) I am not even sure it looks all that good, though it would be nice to be consistent with typical styles. I'd love to find a way around this, as potentially there will be about 45 NHL lists that would use this format. Reso lute 03:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind it being on the talk. I'm not sure about saying that wrapping every entry in a sort is not feasible, though: I've done it several times. Admittedly, my first featured list, Philadelphia Phillies seasons, is not sortable, and would be a pain to sort. I'll do it as a show of solidarity though, haha... Anyway, the restrictions on Article size aren't hard and fast per WP:IAR. I think that having a couple of big, informative articles is a lot better than stubs or unformatted junk. This, of course, would be neither unformatted nor junk. In addition, I suppose I'm the one who initially brought up discussion a couple months ago about how featured content shouldn't look like it was built by bots because we are all different editors, Though I would prefer the em-dash format, I'm certainly willing to let it slide if we are all in agreement. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 12:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Believe me, loading and editing a 200kb chart is a bit of a pain. ;) I am going to again try to bring this issue up with people who are capable of coding the sort templates in the hopes that dashes can be treated as less than zero in a numeric sort, but I suspect we are at their mercy at this point. I want to make List of Calgary Flames players and its kin sortable as well, but again, the dash problem will resurface. Reso lute 15:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]