Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of Manchester City 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 Manchester City F.C. seasons[edit]
List of Manchester City 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 All those pages are FAR outdated: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]
- 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.