Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of Manchester United 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 19:43, 25 August 2011 [1].
List of Manchester United F.C. seasons edit
List of Manchester United 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 All those pages are FAR outdated: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]
Comment sortability is not a requirement of the criteria. It is highly desirable but we recognise that it may not suit some types of list. It certainly is no reason for removing the featured status. Agree the row and col scopes are missing. Would you be kind enough to link me to where we shouldn't use such font colour elements? Also it's worth asking User:RexxS to comment on the colours used if you truly believe there to be an accessibility issue. I can't see a problem myself. Pastel shades are often harder to distinguish from one another than not. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:23, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 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. This is according KV5. According to KV5, again, Hardcoded HTML font color elements should not be used as they are not easily distinguishable; see Help:Using colours. Strawberry on Vanilla (talk) 13:44, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well there aren't any in the article anyway, so it's a moot point. Why was it mentioned in the nom....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:46, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, who are you replying to when you say "The assertion that "it would be impossible to make this tables funciontally sortable" is incorrect;"? Nobody has even said that........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:47, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I'm volunteering to be first to call this out (and the other identical nominations) for being pointed. We use the criteria to judge the list. So, it appears that once the row/col scopes are added, the table will meet the criteria once again. And can you clarify what you mean by "The double-standard is a very dangerous game to play, especially by admin."? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- According to this, the present colors IS an issue. Plus, "no one said that"? KV5 said that. Strawberry on Vanilla (talk) 14:14, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Where does it say that the current colours are an issue in that link specifically please? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:29, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The Contrast Analyzer that wikipedia recommends say so. Strawberry on Vanilla (talk) 14:55, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, really, I haven't downloaded it. Interesting. As I said in one of your other nominations, we can always look to User:RexxS (who offered to help you with your list) to give us some good advice on ACCESS issues. Why not do that? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:02, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually no. I have downloaded it, and may have discovered what SoV was talking about. All of the combinations of colors (black text, bluelinks (followed and unfollowed) and redlinks, on all the specified backgrounds) meet the AA standard. The link colors go very close to not meeting AA, and depending on the resolution of the screen used, and particularly the specific pixels tested for the color contrast (ie an edge pixel that actually uses a transitional color as part of the anti-aliasing process rather than an interior pixel which fully uses the specified rgb color) the result may have been below the standard. As WP:COLOR itself says: "Ensure the contrast of the text with its background reaches the AA level. Reaching AAA level is often impossible, thus AAA conformance is a bonus." (Emphasis mine, of course.) Afaber012 (talk) 19:14, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, really, I haven't downloaded it. Interesting. As I said in one of your other nominations, we can always look to User:RexxS (who offered to help you with your list) to give us some good advice on ACCESS issues. Why not do that? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:02, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The Contrast Analyzer that wikipedia recommends say so. Strawberry on Vanilla (talk) 14:55, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Where does it say that the current colours are an issue in that link specifically please? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:29, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- According to this, the present colors IS an issue. Plus, "no one said that"? KV5 said that. Strawberry on Vanilla (talk) 14:14, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I'm volunteering to be first to call this out (and the other identical nominations) for being pointed. We use the criteria to judge the list. So, it appears that once the row/col scopes are added, the table will meet the criteria once again. And can you clarify what you mean by "The double-standard is a very dangerous game to play, especially by admin."? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I see no issues raised on the list article's talk page, which is my usual experience of the FAR process (things might be different here). More importantly, however, I thought that it was the information contained within the list that was the most important aspect, and not minor style issues. I don't see anything actionable about the above complaint, which seems to form part of a driveby tagathon by the user who posted it. Parrot of Doom 15:03, 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 15:39, 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]
- Comment - I have added scope for row and column headers; changed html to css formatting; consolidated rowspans & colspans to allow sorting; and added sortability. I've also amended slightly the background colours used so that they meet WCAG 2.0 (I think). Would someone with a few minutes to spare check at http://snook.ca/technical/colour_contrast/colour.html that I've chosen correctly (the foreground colour may be black or shades of blue where the text is linked). The template {{ubl}} has a problem, so I need to get an admin to amend it, but I'll deal with that later. Any other fresh eyes would be most welcome. --RexxS (talk) 18:15, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -Article is in good condition see no need to remove. . Warburton1368 (talk) 19:18, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw the candidacy. Strawberry on Vanilla (talk) 19:15, 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.