Between when I left the request and when you replied here you've made 6 edits to 3 articles, including 3 edits to The Real Housewives of Orange County. It does not matter that the table "has been there the longest". If it doesn't comply with our policies and guidelines it needs to be fixed, not left in a non-compliant format. I am clearly not the only one complaining about the table. Numerous editors have attempted to change this and similar tables at various articles and you've reverted them without explanation. That's edit-warring, which can result in you being blocked from editing. There's even a Request for Comment open at WT:TV. However, even if I was the only one complaining, that's irrelevant. It just happens that I noticed the lack of compliance. Removing bolding from the table is simply not enough; the table needs to fully comply, which means incorporating row and column scopes, plainrowheaders, and fixing capitalisation problems as a minimum. There are numerous errors in the table that should also be fixed. You're obvioulsy aware of the existence of errors as you have fixed some yourself. As for being "easier to understand, easier to read, catches the eye better", the two tables are almost visually identical, so those are not valid reasons. The only visual differences are the capitalisation and column width fixes and better compliance with MOS:COLOR. From an editorial standpoint, the compliant table is much easier to read and update. That's why a similarly formatted table was removed from American Idol and a note left on your page by another editor.  (✉)