Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of municipalities in the San Francisco Bay Area/archive2


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured list 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 promoted by Giants2008 23:08, 13 February 2012.

List of municipalities in the San Francisco Bay Area

 * Nominator(s): Kurykh (talk) 01:29, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it fulfills the FL criteria. A previous nomination failed due to low participation, but all concerns have been addressed then. As the list has been stable for months and no other problems have cropped up, I believe it is time for another attempt. Kurykh (talk) 01:29, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment Table needs row and col scopes per MOS:DTT. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:41, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. --Kurykh (talk) 23:48, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Support can't see any major issues here. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:53, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment You need to add rowcsopes as Trm stated, you only added the colscopes, i've done the first cell as an example. Apart from that the list looks fine. NapHit (talk) 20:15, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Aren't they only used for row headers? There are no row headers in the list. --Kurykh (talk) 23:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed your example and added the other rowscopes. --Kurykh (talk) 08:56, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Nearly you need to use an exclamation mark, instead of the pipe, as I did in my example. NapHit (talk) 13:31, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. Changed some formatting and text alignment, but should conform now. --Kurykh (talk) 01:39, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Not sure you're supposed to alter the colour of the row headers it's supposed to be a different colour to indicate it is a header, so I think you should remove the colour formatting and then everything should be fine. NapHit (talk) 12:34, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see how that's not allowed under any guideline; for the purposes of this list that column isn't a header column anyway. In any case, color is an important part of the list (a different color is used for county seats), so using the darker default header color may create more confusion instead. --Kurykh (talk) 21:12, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That column is a row header therefore it should stand out to indicate such, I fault to see how it would confuse anyone when all the row except the ones in green would be the same colour, if that's the case then surely they would be confused now. No other list that has been promoted or is at FLC has formatted the colour of the rowscopes so I don't why this list should be an exception. NapHit (talk) 22:30, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I see no reason to color it as a row header for the sake of default formatting rather than to benefit the reader. We're supposed to make life easier for the reader, not to blame them for potential misinterpretations. Also, just because other lists haven't done it does not mean this list can't do it; FL standards change all the time. --Kurykh (talk) 23:22, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Its not being coloured, its for the benefit of people using screen readers so they know what parts of the table are rows and what parts are columns, adding this text would confuse their view of the table. I think the readers are clever enough not to misinterpret data, how would they misinterpret anything? Green indicates a county seat thats it, where would a reader get confused? surely they'd assume they every other row indicates that that one is not a county seat. FL standards don't change all the time, they change over a period of time, and they haven't changed over this issue. All the examples in MOS:DTT use scope=row without colour formatting, so again i would stress that you remove colour formatting and just leave scope=row. NapHit (talk) 23:36, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I wasn't talking about screen readers or the efficacy of rowscopes; rowscopes have been added already, so that's a nonissue. I was merely discussing the coloring of a column for non-visually impaired visitors. FL standards change gradually, but they do change dramatically over time (I've been here quite a few times and the standards were different every single time). I don't understand why we need to ask for even a bit of unnecessarily guesswork on others, but if current standards demand that we follow rules for the sake of following rules then so be it. It's a disappointing and regrettable attitude and I don't have time for that, so I'm not going to press the issue and have removed the coloring in question. --Kurykh (talk) 23:57, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * FL standards do change over time but not in the 10 days since you nominated this list. Anyway you've done what I asked so I support. NapHit (talk) 11:12, 13 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Support - I made a minor tweak to the lead - please check to make sure you're OK with my revised wording. Other than that, everything looks good, so I'm happy to support. Dana boomer (talk) 15:39, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Support Excellent list -- ♫GoP♫ T C N 14:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.