Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Santos FC 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 not promoted by The Rambling Man 07:33, 23 August 2011 [1].

List of Santos FC seasons[edit]

Featured list candidates/List of Santos FC seasons/archive1

Nominator(s): Strawberry on Vanilla (talk) 14:10, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe that it now meets (and exceeds) the qualities needed to become a FL. Strawberry on Vanilla (talk) 14:10, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose / Comments from KV5

I'm seeing some serious issues here.

A lot of redlinks have been overridden to blue to make it appear that this list is full of articles when, in fact, many of them do not exist yet. And I do mean a lot.
"Do not use techniques that require interaction to provide information, such as tooltips or any other "hover" text" - per WP:ACCESS. Referring here to the table headers.
Table is not sortable.
Font size should not be forced smaller than 100%, especially considering that there are no images alongside the table.
Blank rows between seasons serve no purpose other than a visual division and should be removed as they add no functionality and are a hindrance to screen readers.
The article "Torneio Rio-São Paulo" needs to be moved and the links in this article corrected to match. Per WP:DASH, Torneio Rio – São Paulo is the correct title.
The updating of the table to standardize results across seasons makes the table inaccurate unless the sources do the same thing.

I haven't done a full review of the lead for grammar and MOS compliance, but I saw some issues in passing that I'll go over once the above are corrected. — KV5 • Talk • 14:49, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I read the regs on redlinks and such. There is nothing stating that no one is allowed to changed "redlinks" to any other color. The only issue with red font is that it shouldn't be used on pages that exist; nothing against the usage of the other way around.
I fixed this.
Tables do not need to be sortable according to the regs. Plus, it would be impossible to make this tables funciontally sortable.
Nothing in the regs about font sizes.
Fixed it and made it MUCH better.
Fixed and moved competition page to correct wiki standards.
Fixed.

Cheers! Strawberry on Vanilla (talk) 19:01, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Referring to "the regs" like they are immutable isn't going to improve this list. Tables are supposed to, according to the featured list criteria, include sort facilities "where helpful"; in this case they would be. The assertion that "it would be impossible to make this tables funciontally sortable" is incorrect; it would just require a re-formatting of the list's style.

Key phrase: "where helpful". In this case, it is detrimental. Heck! I know of dozens of FL's that doesn't have sortability and they are currently FLs. If you tell me that it was because FLs had lower standards before, I will simply recommend that those lists have their feature status revoked since it obviously, according to you, doesn't meet your perceived reg. T h i s a r e j u s t a f e w t h a t I h a v e f o u n d. It is probably why the option is that: optional.

"I will simply recommend that those lists have their feature status revoked since it obviously, according to you, doesn't meet your perceived reg" - this is not my perceived "reg"; it is a featured list criterion, and to nominate all of those lists for FLRC would be gaming the system to prove a spurious point. Sortability would be helpful in this case and an unwillingness to attempt a re-format of the table isn't conducive to the spirit of cooperative editing. Your assertion that sortability would be detrimental to this list isn't supported by any fact; it's simply your opinion. You mentioned wanting to be able to compare seasons, and sortability is a big part of being able to do that. — KV5 • Talk • 21:36, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, either the standards are set for everyone or none at all. Frankly, this is blatant double-standard. I have shown almost 40 articles that has no sortability and are FL but somehow mine should be the exception...hmm...

This FLC is not being singled out, it is not an exception, and it is not a double standard. Criteria change, standards change, older lists need updating, but new lists must meet the most up-to-date criteria. — KV5 • Talk • 22:35, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the red links, WP:REDLINK says, in part, "A red link to an article that will plausibly be created in the future, should be left alone rather than be created as a minimal stub article that has no useful information... However, it is better to leave this link red, than to create a 'placeholder stub'... with the sole purpose of turning the red link to blue" (emphasis mine). It also reads, "In the rare situation that it is useful to display a red link as a blue even when no page yet exists, it is possible to override the link color and force it to be blue with the {{bluelink}} template". In short, red links shouldn't be forced to be another color unless there is a "useful" reason; in this case there is none save to make it appear that the articles exist, which does not help users who might read this list and want to create the articles (most of which are valid article topics and should be created at some point).

I thought about using the template but I will eventually create articles for each season which is why I colored them individually.

You're not getting me. The template is only supposed to be used if there is a useful reason. In this case, there is not, and the false blue coloring should be removed. — KV5 • Talk • 21:36, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to remove it. I will eventually build articles for each season (which I already started and completed one of them). The regs on coloring red links allow that in this type of situation.

Not so. This is not a useful reason; it's a deceptive reason. Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and bluing all of those red links discourages users who think those articles exist from creating them (red links encourage article creation, and this format hinders that). — KV5 • Talk • 22:35, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "regs" about font size are thus: "Editors should avoid manually inserting large and small fonts into prose. Increased and decreased font size should primarily be produced through automated facilities such as headings or through carefully designed templates. Additionally, large tables may require a decreased font size in order to fit on screen" (from WP:FONTSIZE). This is not a "large table", at least not in consideration of width. Thus, a small font size should not be forced. — KV5 • Talk • 19:51, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The table WILL be too wide. Hence, why I lowered the size of the font.

It will not. I have mocked up a couple rows of each table in my sandbox so that you can see it is not too wide. — KV5 • Talk • 21:36, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments from KV5

Tables need "scope" parameters and captions; see MOS:DTT.

Most of that stuff is obviously obsolete. Again, t h i s a r e j u s t a f e w e x a m p l e s.

The WP:ACCESS requirements are not obsolete; they are, in fact, relatively new to the Manual of Style. This table is in fact obsolete. And please do not argue that other stuff exists, because it's not a valid argument. Just because other, older FLs are one way does not mean that your current FLC does not have to meet the most up-to-date requirements, because consensus can change. — KV5 • Talk • 21:36, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I will be frank and say that I am not going to do any of that since it is ridiculous, highly redundant and, frankly, almost useless; it is simpler using the "rowspan" and "colspan" format.

Then I will be frank and tell you that this list will not pass because it does not comply with the Manual of Style. — KV5 • Talk • 22:35, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Key table also needs headers and a caption.

Tables do, no lists. Especially when they are under a subject.

Your list is in table format; thus, these are required elements per WP:ACCESS. — KV5 • Talk • 21:36, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Same as above.

In the "Cup" column of the second table, what is the difference between "N/A" and the em-dash?

N/A is in the case that the competition(s) didn't exist whereas the dash mean the club didn't qualify.

That needs to be clarified somewhere. — KV5 • Talk • 21:36, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done.

I suggest choosing more legible symbols instead of the currency sign and approximation sign, especially since the extremely common *, §, and † are not currently in use. These are much more easily identified. Also, indicators that are at cap height (§ and †) should be superscripted, and there should not be spaces between the item and its indicator (for example, you should say "1987*" or "1984^§" rather than "1987 *" or "1984 §". If you choose to use the dagger (†), ensure that you use the {{dagger}} template, so that alt text can be added for non-sighted readers.

Done

The colors used for the double and treble are not easily distinguishable; see Help:Using colours.

Done

Still haven't looked at grammar or anything in the lead. — KV5 • Talk • 19:51, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Strawberry on Vanilla (talk) 21:15, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then I ask for a new reviewer. Frankly, this one obviously lacks objectivity and neutrality and is, in the process, promoting double standards. I believe others would agree with this assessment if they were to review this a bit. Strawberry on Vanilla (talk) 23:05, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should be a bit careful with what you say, the reviewer does not lack objectivity and neutrality he is merely upholding the guidelines that every editor has to follow, you're no exception. Just because other lists have got featured status and now fall foul of the guidelines, is now reason why this list should pass. It is the nature of wikipedia, the guidelines are constantly evolving. Seeing as you're asking for a new reviewer I'm happy to oblige. NapHit (talk) 23:14, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I pointed it that out myself. I also even volunteered to recommend present FL to FLRC since the great bulk of them doesn't meet the so-called "present" standards. He pointed out that it would be using wiki to prove a point. He was legalizing double-standards which is vile and disgusting to say the least...it is that sort of thing that makes things like featured content, which should be for great works through fair and unbiased standards, seem like Mickey Mouse things that anyone should just put a star to if they felt like it. Sincerily, the more we go on here the more it sort of confirms itself.

If you want to challenge the validity of my review, I have no problem with it, as I am only asking that you fulfill the featured list criteria. If you like, you may ask the general populace at WT:FLC or ask one of the directors, well, directly. You're not being singled out, you're just being asked to meet the same guidelines as everyone else. And a mass addition of FLRCs would be disruptive and would likely be speedily procedurally closed due to WP:POINT. If you find an old FL with egregious problems, I encourage you to FLRC it, but submitting them en masse is not the proper way to do things. You can ask for a "new reviewer" if you wish, but FL candidacy is not determined by just one reviewer, and obviously at least one other reviewer agrees with me, so perhaps it's time to reconsider your position. — KV5 • Talk • 01:40, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose
As KV5 states above the table needs to sortable and your argument does not wash especially since there is this list that has a sortable table in it.

Show me a standard, regulation, anything that has "sortable" and "need" in the same sentence and I'll do it. BTW, that list is not even close to being like the 40+ that I have stated above. The list you have has seasons that only need one row. It is a small club, after all (before today, I have never even heard of it). Every list I have shown have seasons spanning more than one row, which is what makes the sortable option jumble up into random nonsense.

However, show me a table, which has seasons spanning 2+ rows, be functioning correctly with a sortable option and I will happily do it.

It can't be done with rowspans and colspans, which is why you have to re-format for sortability, but if you look at the example NapHit provides, it does show bi-level competition within the same row in a sortable table. Right now, if I want to see all the first-place seasons together, I can't do it. So the sortability is "helpful", per the criteria, and needs to be implemented. — KV5 • Talk • 01:46, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The table itself is awful to read, why is the top in white? Why are some parts of the table bold, this violates MOS:BOLD

Those rules only apply to article texts. There is nothing there that prevents its usage usage within a table. All of the articles above that I have pulled follow the same suit. Here is another one I found.

This is not true. The Manual of Style applies equally to lists, prose, images, and other article components. — KV5 • Talk • 01:35, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Colours are used yet there are no symbols next to them which violates WP:ACCESS

It says that colours shouldn't be the only thing used and to use something else as a symbol. There is "1st", "2nd" and "3rd" which are explained in the key section.

On the table alone I'm opposing sort it out and get it to the standard that the Watford list is at then I will reconisder. NapHit (talk) 23:14, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This has been rushed to FLC before it is ready. It was nominated just 48 hours after a peer review was opened, and less than 24 hours after the first peer review comments. Unsurprisingly given the timescale, some of those comments are still unresolved, indeed some are repeated or expanded upon in the above reviews.

Redlinks and bluelinks are a fairly fundamental part of Wikipedia. Obfuscating them in a wholesale manner is unacceptable.
In the peer review I asked How can there be a top scorer in seasons where no competitive football was played? The response indicated that friendlies are included. The are two problems with this. Firstly, the list makes no such indication, which makes for a lot of misleading totals. Secondly, it is standard practice for football statisticians to exclude such matches.
Two seasons have a footnote saying Santos abandoned the tournament due to lack of funds. What's the story here? Placings are still given, when usually teams are thrown out of the competition in such circumstances. I tried clicking on the season links for more information, but of course they were redlinks masquerading as bluelinks.
According to the lead the club played a friendly for the first time in 1914, yet the table has rows for 1912 and 1913. Oldelpaso (talk) 07:57, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am withdrawing candidacy as I am no longer interested in this. Strawberry on Vanilla (talk) 02:37, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.