The list was kept by The Rambling Man 20:57, 25 August 2011 [1].
List of Liverpool F.C. seasons ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Toolbox |
---|
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 All those pages are FAR outdated: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
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
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
The list was kept by The Rambling Man 20:57, 25 August 2011 [1].
List of Liverpool F.C. seasons ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Toolbox |
---|
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 All those pages are FAR outdated: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
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
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