This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sports, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sport-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SportsWikipedia:WikiProject SportsTemplate:WikiProject Sportssports articles
Assess : newly added and existing articles, maybe nominate some good B-class articles for GA; independently assess some as A-class, regardless of GA status.
Cleanup : * Sport governing body (this should-be-major article is in a shameful state) * Field hockey (History section needs sources and accurate information - very vague at the moment.) * Standardize Category:American college sports infobox templates to use same font size and spacing. * Sport in the United Kingdom - the Popularity section is incorrect and unsourced. Reliable data is required.
* Fix project template and/or "to do list" Current version causes tables of content to be hidden unless/until reader chooses "show."
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ice Hockey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of ice hockey on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ice HockeyWikipedia:WikiProject Ice HockeyTemplate:WikiProject Ice HockeyIce Hockey articles
@Uncleben85, w/ Stepan; no official sources have confirmed he's retired/taken a team position, and the article used says it's based off a report from an NHL insider on Twitter. For now, I think it's best to be hidden until a more reputable/official report comes along. TheKip23:08, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@The Kip: Greetings! Regarding the restoration of the emsp;s in this and other articles...I didn't particularly like the indenting, because it almost but not quite hit the right edge of the word "conditional" on the previous line. Due to differences in fonts from reader to reader, it's not possible to reliable hit that sort of thing exactly. I was happy with no indenting, but if you want some, it might look better to use {{in5}} (using the wiki way instead of an HTML entity per MOS:MARKUP) and put "or" at the beginning of each indented line for clarity? -- Beland (talk) 21:50, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy to switch to wiki markup. I feel it definitely needs the indent though. I think I would be more inclined to start it on the current season, then to go back and redo past seasons.--–uncleben85 (talk) 22:48, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've switched the indentation markup. I also notice there is a lot of content in "span" tags' "title" attribute that should be in footnotes with {{efn}} or just put in the main text. -- Beland (talk) 23:10, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I assume putting this info into the "title" is to produce a tooltip (popup text) on hover? This technique is prohibited by MOS:NOTOOLTIPS. This text would be invisible to most readers, including 1.) nearly all desktop readers; there's no indication that hovering over "conditional" would do anything, 2.) all mobile readers (the majority of traffic these days) who cannot hover because they are not using a mouse, and 3.) people using text-to-speech systems (as I do sometimes).
End notes are a standard English Wikipedia mechanism for providing supplementary information, though they still present info out-of-context to some screenreaders. If the info given isn't important enough to justify even a superscript letter, then it should be deleted. -- Beland (talk) 02:58, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The percent retained I'm fine with. I get the argument about screen readers and the span text, makes sense, and efn footnotes is probably the right compromise. However, I do agree, they look so much worse in the table as "conditional[xyz]" definitely janks it up! The content, however is definitely important enough; deleting it is not an option. –uncleben85 (talk) 21:01, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@The Kip: Another option could be to add another column to the trade tables, to include conditions and considerations in-line with the trade itself? I personally really do not like the hanging "(unknown)" next to unknown future considerations (as to which most FCs are, as you know!) Like:
Uncleben table
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Calgary will receive Vancouver's third-round pick in 2024 if Vancouver reaches the Western Conference Finals in 2024; otherwise Calgary will receive the better of Vancouver or New Jersey's fourth-round pick in 2024.
^Calgary will receive Vancouver's third-round pick in 2024 if Vancouver reaches the Western Conference Finals in 2024; otherwise Calgary will receive the better of Vancouver or New Jersey's fourth-round pick in 2024.
Fair enough! The footnotes just clutter up the table, imo, and mess with the indenting so the lines above and below don't match up, is all.–uncleben85 (talk) 14:22, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
