Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of Liverpool 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 20:57, 25 August 2011 [1].
List of Liverpool F.C. seasons
List of Liverpool 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 All those pages are FAR outdated: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]
- 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.