Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of Aston Villa F.C. seasons/archive1
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list removal 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 kept by The Rambling Man 22:29, 25 August 2011 [1].
List of Aston Villa F.C. seasons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Notified: Example user, Example WikiProject
I am nominating this for featured list removal because I am helping to uphold the standards that I have been told about, which this list clearly doesn't come close to. All those pages are FAR outdated:
1- The table is not sortable
2- It doesn't meet the new WP:ACCESS requirements
3- Hardcoded HTML font color elements should not be used.
4- The bright colours used for 1st/2nd/3rd places could well cause accessibility issues. A pastel-coloured background would be preferable.
Regardless of whether other stuff exists with lower quality, we as wikipedians should uphold the standards to all or none at all. The double-standard is a very dangerous game to play, especially by admin. In short, this list needs a lot of work to keep its feauture status.Strawberry on Vanilla (talk) 13:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - From what I can see of the nominator's edit history, this strikes me as a POINTy nomination. Should be struck down. – PeeJay 15:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Stop trying to sway the subject; the list meets almost none of the requirements needed to keep its feauture status. Strawberry on Vanilla (talk) 16:53, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Of the concerns raised by the nominator:
- The table is now sortable. (Out of interest, that took an edit of adding 9 characters: "
sortable". To achieve the "fully sortable" standard the nominator apparently expects did take further work, but was only the rearranging of the two header rows, and was achieved easily within 20 seconds.) - It now meets WP:ACCESS with the addition of header scope. (That one took about 60 seconds with a simple find and replace.)
- I'm unaware of any Wikipedia policy or guideline that precludes "hardcoded color elements". Without further clarification, I don't think this point is relevant at all.
- The colors used to denote 1st/champion and 2nd/runner-up (no apparent use for 3rd) are explained in the key. The use of the color codes "
gold" and "silver", or their rgb/hex equivalents in tables to highlight 1st and 2nd is in my experience a virtual standard, with no known complaints regarding readability for color blind or similar users. Symbols added for other colors used as alternate for screen readers/etc. Color scheme used meets and often exceeds AA standard referred to in WP:COLOR. (Another 60 seconds worth of edits to add the symbols.)
- The table is now sortable. (Out of interest, that took an edit of adding 9 characters: "
Not only does the nomination seem to be counter to WP:POINT (particularly given that apparently no editors or WikiProjects were notified), the list seems to meet all the requirements of WP:FL?. Afaber012 (talk) 18:13, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Why is the table being sortable an improvement? The only column this makes sense in is the top goalscorer tally. Gold for first place, silver for second. I really don't another colour being used just to satisfy some obscure guideline. This is a waste of time.--EchetusXe 21:34, 25 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.