Talk:List of clubs in the Bundesliga

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of clubs in the Bundesliga article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Germany Mid‑importance

	Germany portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany 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.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Football: Germany Low‑importance

	Association football portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football 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.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the German football task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Sorting

Considering that this is just a list of clubs, and not some kind of ranking, shouldn't the table be sorted alphabetically? I get the other ranking, and know that it sometimes used in German magazines, but is it appropriate here? OdinFK (talk) 09:14, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As the table is sortable in every way I can't see how it matters. The alphabetical sorting could probably be improved through the use of the Template:sortname, but that is another matter. Calistemon (talk) 22:03, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it can be sorted, but that doesn't mean that the initial presentation is completely inconsequential. Actually carrying that argument further you could just sort the clubs at random. I mean it surely is not a very important issue, but given the choice I would still pre-sort the table in the most meaningful way. My impression is that this would be alphabetical here. OdinFK (talk) 09:11, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And my opinion is that the current (2014–15) clubs should be on top. It makes the updating so much easier at the end of season when a lot of articles require updating. But if you feel like changing that you are most welcome to do so. I don't see it as an overly important issue. Regards, Calistemon (talk) 11:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]