Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/log/August 2011
- 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].
- 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 All those pages are FAR outdated: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.
- 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 [2].
- 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]
- And how much of that workload are you going to help with? Parrot of Doom 21:44, 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) 16:54, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Once the multiple nomination business is resolved, could a director let me know on my talkpage whether this will stand as an FLRC or be removed? For starters, the list doesn't even have coloured fonts or bright background colours. Oldelpaso (talk) 16:14, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -Article is in good condition see no need to remove. Question rationale of nominator.Warburton1368 (talk) 19:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - As I said on the Aston Villa nomination, the only column that has any business being sortable is the top goalscorer tally. Also I think it is pretty well established that gold is for first place, silver is for second. I really don't another colour being used just to satisfy some obscure guideline. This is a waste of time.--EchetusXe 21:39, 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.
- 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 [3].
- 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 background 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]
- There are no "Hardcoded HTML font color elements", where do you see those.......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:39, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Everywhere. Again, WP:ACCESS. Strawberry on Vanilla (talk) 14:19, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't change people's comments. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:22, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Everywhere. Again, WP:ACCESS. Strawberry on Vanilla (talk) 14:19, 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) 16:54, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -Seems to be other reasons to this nomination however this article is in very good condition see no reason to remove. Warburton1368 (talk) 19:14, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - As I said on the Aston Villa nomination, the only column that has any business being sortable is the top goalscorer tally. Also I think it is pretty well established that gold is for first place, silver is for second. I really don't another colour being used just to satisfy some obscure guideline. This is a waste of time.--EchetusXe 21:39, 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.
- 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 20:57, 25 August 2011 [4].
- 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]
- Erm, the list is fully sortable and meets the access requirements. Did you even look at the article before nominating it....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:01, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it isn't. There is no sortable tab for "League", "Other competitions" or "Top scorer". How do I know Liverpool finished as semifinalists of the FA Cup in 1965? There is no link towards it. Strawberry on Vanilla (talk) 14:09, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The top scorer info can already be sorted by both name and number of goals - what more do you want? And I don't at all understand what "How do I know Liverpool finished as semifinalists of the FA Cup in 1965? There is no link towards it" means, especially given that Liverpool didn't finish as semi-finalists in 1965...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Tables are supposed to, according to the featured list criteria, be fully sortable; in this case they aren't.
- Where in the criteria does it say "be fully" sortable please? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:25, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if it is a requirement, in what way is the current table not fully sortable anyway? You can sort the top scorers by both name and number of goals. In what other concievable way do you think this info could/should be sortable.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:33, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Where in the criteria does it say "be fully" sortable please? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:25, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Again...how would I know they did or didn't finish as semi-finalists in 1965? Strawberry on Vanilla (talk) 14:23, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Because if you find the row for the 1964-65 season it will tell you, what are you trying to prove? NapHit (talk) 14:28, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- (e/c) I think you scroll down until you see 1964-65 and then read across to the FA Cup cell. Voila. Doesn't sound too difficult. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:30, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What is stoping any other user to put last place, first, etc. there? It is unsourced. The entire list is almost unsourced. Strawberry on Vanilla (talk) 14:52, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, you didn't list that as one of your concerns. Well, if you head for the "References" section, you'll see a "general" reference which is used to reference the list "in general". This is much better than in-line citations which would be re-used for every line/cell etc which for a list of this size would be madness. But nothing stops anyone from editing the list. This is a wiki. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:01, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What is stoping any other user to put last place, first, etc. there? It is unsourced. The entire list is almost unsourced. Strawberry on Vanilla (talk) 14:52, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Tables are supposed to, according to the featured list criteria, be fully sortable; in this case they aren't.
- The top scorer info can already be sorted by both name and number of goals - what more do you want? And I don't at all understand what "How do I know Liverpool finished as semifinalists of the FA Cup in 1965? There is no link towards it" means, especially given that Liverpool didn't finish as semi-finalists in 1965...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it isn't. There is no sortable tab for "League", "Other competitions" or "Top scorer". How do I know Liverpool finished as semifinalists of the FA Cup in 1965? There is no link towards it. Strawberry on Vanilla (talk) 14:09, 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 fully sortable. As far as I am aware there is no facility for sorting a table based on the contents of a column group, only of individual columns, which this table does make use of. Under WP:FL? point 4 reads "... includes, where helpful, ... table sort facilities." Though it may have become a de facto requirement for a table to be sortable, there is no reference I'm aware of to be "fully sortable", with common practice being to prevent certain columns, particularly for individual inline citations, from being sortable as it provides no meaningful use.
- 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
- It now appears to meet WP:ACCESS with relatively minor adjustments to the table.
- 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. The other colors used in the table are likewise explained by the key, and also make use of symbols to act as an alternate key for screen readers. No apparent WP:ACCESS issues.
Though there are some redlinks, they are minimal (and maintaining this as a FL may provide more opportunity for a knowledgeable or simply keen and resourceful editor to create those articles). Otherwise I see nothing from WP:FL? for this to be removed. Afaber012 (talk) 18:13, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - list clearly is sortable (and has been since before the nomination was made), meets access requirements and has never used HTML font colours. Three of the four reasons for nomination are therefore invalid, and I can't see any obvious issue with the cell colours either...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:07, 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.
- 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 [5].
- 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]
- Comment – Now, sortability is a big problem. I don't know why, but only "Season" column sorted correctly. — MT (talk) 19:38, 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.