Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/August 2015

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The list was withdrawn by SchroCat 08:19, 29 August 2015 [1].

Nominator(s): --Misconceptions2 (talk) 12:44, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for Featured List status because I believe it meets all of the FLC criteria. The list consists of all notable franchsies of Square Enix, with sales figures where available. The prose was created by an Admin. --Misconceptions2 (talk) 12:44, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments:
  • "The prose was created by an Admin" That means nothing, admins aren't special when it comes to content.
  • What is the definition of "spinoff"? You note 11 original and 27 spinoffs in Dragon Quest, but simply "48 games" for Final Fantasy; do Final Fantasy Tactics, Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles, Dirge of Cerebus, etc. count as original or spinoffs, and why?
  • Furthermore, there have been several notable Final Fantasy movies; why are those not listed?
  • And again, Kingdom Hearts specifies remakes; I know that FF games have been remade many times.
  • Saying, for example, "110,000,000" is needlessly specific. The source says "110 million" and that's sufficient for here.
  • This might be just me but I think the "as of" date is not needed for the sales. The reader can assume as of current day, and in cases like Conflict, where no game has been released since 2008, people can easily and correctly assume that the number of sales has not budged much since then. The only time it's necessary is where the sourced data is older than the newest release: For example, Championship Manager.
  • "Latest release" contains some future releases, like in Deus Ex. It shouldn't.
  • Carmageddon: "as of 2011", no, they sold the rights IN 2011. :)
  • What does "most games in franchise published by Square Enix" mean? For example, Final Fantasy is not marked, but Tobal is, despite Square Enix being formed after the last Tobal game was released. Also Actraiser.
  • Is the series "Xeno" or "Xenogears"? If it's Xeno then there are 6 games, not just 1 game and 5 spiritual successors. (And also generally 'spiritual successors' aren't noted in a series. For example, Shadow of the Colossus is the spiritual successor to Ico, but no one would say they are both part of the Ico series. So maybe that designation should be removed.)
• That's all for now. --Golbez (talk) 14:43, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as the "admin" in question (I'm also one of the FLC delegates...) this list is nowhere near ready for FLC. I'm pretty heavily involved in the article, so I can't muck with this nomination, but I recommend a speedy close. --PresN 15:22, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok then i withdraw my nomination--Misconceptions2 (talk) 15:29, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• @Crisco 1492: Nominator has indicated above that they would like to withdraw. Cowlibob (talk) 20:24, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. – SchroCat (talk) 08:17, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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 archived by Crisco 1492 00:37, 26 August 2015 [2].

Nominator(s): A Texas Historian (Impromptu collaboration?) 05:24, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A team that existed for less than 25 years is already taking a year-long break. UAB is one of several infant teams of college football, and is now the poster child for getting money out of college sports. During the program's short existence, it has produced twelve players who have been drafted into the NFL, and surprisingly, has two first-round picks. While only one player has had a long-lasting and successful career in the NFL, UAB still has done a better job producing players than several older schools. And I actually am neither a supporter or detractor of UAB. This was a spur-of-the-moment expansion by me, and most of the tedious, repetitive stat work on this list goes to User:Patriarca12. This will hopefully be followed by another list or two about UAB football. Thanks to everyone (anyone?) who reviews, - A Texas Historian (Impromptu collaboration?) 05:24, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This list has twelve occupants... why can't you merge this to UAB Blazers football? Seattle (talk) 18:16, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - Fails 3b "In length and/or topic, it...does not largely duplicate material from another article, and could not reasonably be included as part of a related article." I see absolutely no reason why this cannot be incorporated into UAB Blazers football, which already contains a table with 7 of the 12 players that are in the candidate article. Besides that, the key section is unnecessary, the references are not complete and not properly formatted, and the fourth paragraph of the lead is unnecessary. AHeneen (talk) 09:24, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the unofficial rule is that ten items is necessary for notability. UAB Blazers football right now is a mess that I hope to fix soon. The list of seven will eventually become a paragraph or two that incorporates all twelve people at this list. When the article is properly finished, having this list there will give undue weight to this topic. I don't think the key is unnecessary. It provides purpose and is standard for these type of lists. And although the referencing is not like my usual over-the-top detail, I tried to keep it like other formatting for UAB articles, which has previously been found to be fine. If you could point out something that you think is improperly formatted, I'll be glad to fix it. And I agree that I went overboard in the fourth paragraph, although it is not entirely unnecessary. I'll shorten it and add it to another one. Thanks for the comments, - A Texas Historian (Impromptu collaboration?) 17:34, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Any evidence of this unofficial rule? Even if it is a guideline supported by a WikiProject, it must still comply with Wikipedia content guidelines. The UAB football article is just 11kB and could be significantly expanded without the need for a separate list article for NFL players (see WP:SIZERULE). The list article is just 1.8kB! It can easily be integrated into the UAB football article without any problems.

The key has far more items than are used in the table. It should also not be in a separate section. The terms "general" and "specific" for the references are unusual. I see now that it is supposed to be short citations, but the "specific" references should be before the general references. However, the formatting is not as much of a concern as the length is. AHeneen (talk) 18:21, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:29, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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 withdrawn by Crisco 1492 00:51, 14 August 2015 [3].

Nominator(s): AHeneen (talk) 18:11, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article has received a copyedit from the Guild of Copyeditors. The issues raised in the previous nomination were addressed.

Although the search is ongoing, there has not been a lot of events associated with the search in recent months. Since November 2014, there has only been about 1-2 events per month (and a few of the events listed aren't very significant). Most of the events occurred between March-May 2014 and the start of the current phase in October 2014. I believe the list meets the stability criteria because it "does not change significantly from day to day". AHeneen (talk) 18:11, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdraw - Subject is a current event and may have a significant amount of content added in the coming days and weeks. AHeneen (talk) 19:59, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:49, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.