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

Featured list removal candidates/List of Aston Villa F.C. seasons/archive1

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 All those pages are FAR outdated: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. – Pee Jay 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.)

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.--Echetus Xe 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.