Talk:Los Angeles City Attorney

message: I am removing the red links from names that are simply not Notable. This I do after checking (1) the L.A. Publlic Library reference files, (2) California Digital Newspaper Collection, (3) the L.A. Times files (if after 1881). Normally, if the subject has not had a printed obituary, then he or she is simply not Notable. Anyway, that's how I've been doing it. GeorgeLouis (talk) 11:00, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-notable names 

message: * Should the alphabetical list of past Los Angeles city attorneys be made non-sortable in the alphabetical column but remain sortable in the chronological column? Notes: I am maintaining the previous discussion below so that the arguments don't have to be repeated. I have changed my username from User:GeorgeLouis to the following:  BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 18:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: For the two-chart version of this page, just click here. GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:18, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Tables are sortable both ways, because some users do find it useful to sort in reverse chronological/alphabetical order. I don't want to sound too rude, but the article is a stub...there are more important things to be done to the article than to carry on about the table. The article one reference (I changed into a note...the reference at the end of the note needs to use a separate Ref template) for one of the people in the list. Can references be added to the article (!?!?) and maybe add some actual content about the LA city attorney (eg. an infobox, administrative structure of the office, address/office locations, when the elections are held, etc.)? As explained above, the sortable table is a proper way to format this list; there is no harm in it being sortable both ways. If you feel the visual appearance of the arrows on table is problematic or that tables should only be sorted one way, I suggest you start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Tables (or maybe Help talk:Sorting). AHeneen (talk) 20:20, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for those two links, AHemeen; they were interesting, but I did not find them very helpful in this conversationl: They didn’t seem to have much to say about the conflation of information that, to my mind, would be better served by two separate tables as I mentioned above. I’d still like to achieve WP:consensus, so I’ve asked for help at the Help Desk. As for your other suggestions, I can appreciate your interest in making the article better, but I feel this section should concentrate on the table controversy right now. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I support the sortable table as it is. Sortable tables can always be sorted in both directions. This cannot be switched off. Anyway, it sorts in increasing order on the first click so I see no harm in an additional option to revert the order with a second click. Sortable tables are used in a lot of articles and many readers will already know exactly how they work. I often sort numbers and dates in both directions as a reader. Less often for alphabetical but it happens on long tables which don't fit on my screen, mainly when I want to find a specific entry I know will be near the end. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:44, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I am familiar with tables which can be sorted either way on every column. Devising a special kind of table in which some of the sort facilities have been disabled, even if possible, would appear to serve no purpose. Maproom (talk) 08:39, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I found the answer and inserted a revised table, which I hope will be satisfactory. I think it answers the objections I raised above, and I hope there is no objection to this solution. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:24, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

text: I will be leaving this discussion for a week or so. GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:10, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

text: Why do you prefer that to a fully sortable table? Maproom (talk) 23:43, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the question, Maproom. I believe you might have misunderstood the problem. I myself actually prefer to have two non-sortable tables, like the ones from previous years, as you see here. For quite a while there was a (nonsortable) chronological table at the top of the page and a (nonsortable) alphabetical table at the bottom – where you had to click on the Show tab to see it. But on 7 March this year another editor proposed a single table with both columns sortable. You can see it here. After a bit of editors' reverting and re-reverting, in the spirit of compromise I acquiesced to the single-table idea, and I submitted the one that I posted just above (with the first column nonsortable). This was reverted and a complaint was entered against me for edit-warring, so I took a voluntary leave of eight days from the dispute to let things quiet down. Now I am asking that the WP:Community declare its preference one way or another for a table with a nonsortable alphabetical column and a sortable chronological column. It seems to me there should be no reason for us to provide a link that would turn the alphabet upside down. What do you think? BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 15:02, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Make both columns sortable in both directions (as they automatically are with the sort feature). The latest suggestion is the most pointless sort variation I have seen: A single sortable column in a table which is already sorted by that column. I know that clicking twice will revert the order but the whole point of sortable tables is that you can choose which property to sort by. Column headings should not have sort instructions. We have huge numbers of sortable tables and most readers will know how they work. Instructions in the table are distracting when you read the table. If the sorting ability is important in a specific table, for example a large table with several sortable columns many readers probably want to use if they notice the feature, then there may be instructions above the table. But sorting is of minor importance here and shouldn't be mentioned. The tooltip when you hover over the heading is sufficient. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:44, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

text: I think that a single table is better than two tables, both for the reader and for those who maintain the page. Given that there is to be a single table, I might have reasons for sorting it in chronological order, in reverse chronological order, and in alphabetical order (because I just sorted it chronologically, and I now want it alphabetical again). I can't imagine why anyone would want to sort it in reverse alphabetical order; but I can't prove that no-one could have such a reason, and anyway I can see no harm in giving the option. Wikipedia is about providing readers with information – why put difficulties in their way when they try to access it? Maproom (talk) 16:13, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

text: A discussion on the talk page of a minor article isn't the place to complain about how tables are implemented site-wide...you should start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Tables. AHeneen (talk) 22:02, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks to AHeneen for that suggestion. I had asked for such a link when this topic first started out, but I received no answer, and I did receive some unwelcome abuse. Oh, well. Yes, I will go over there are poke around. Thank you. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 21:52, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Sortable table