Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/October 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 not promoted by PresN 15:59, 27 October 2015 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Nominator(s): '''tAD''' (talk) 15:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miroslav Klose, who crossed the Iron Curtain knowing only two words of German, is an unlikely legend of international football, even if his name does not conjure up as much romanticism as those of Pelé and Puskás. He scored on his debut in 2001 and ended his career on the biggest high imaginable, winning the World Cup. He is the top scorer of all time for one of the elite nations in world football, and the top scorer of all time in the World Cup, the most-watched single-sport event on the planet. Naturally, much has been written specifically on his goalscoring exploits rather than his career as a whole, thus this list is a topic of public interest. '''tAD''' (talk) 15:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• this needs a longer intro and a statistics section (i.e. goals per competitions and g# of games). Nergaal (talk) 18:17, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• No, the lead is fine; a summary of goals and appearances per years seems to be what Nergaal is attempting to request. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:33, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• The Rambling Man I think Nergaal may be asking for analysis of goals per competition or most common opponent against whom he scored, like you have on Rooney and Henry. I can put that in too. '''tAD''' (talk) 20:05, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The lead should at least briefly summarize the history section, like pointing out say when he became the top goalscorer, when he scored hatricks, most common opponent scored against, when he helped Germany win Euros and WCs, etc. I also think a small table summarizing how many goals per type of competition would be informative (how many WC, WC quals, Euro, Euro quals, friendlies). Also, his name should be linked in the intro. Nergaal (talk) 17:43, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - as this has stagnated...

• Perhaps Nergaal just wants the summary section merged in with the lead, as per Rooney and Charlton. TBH, don't care if it's clumped together or not.
• "alongside champion Brazil's Rivaldo and behind Ronaldo"
• I'd wikilink brace for the benefit of readers
• "On 10 September 2008, in 2010 FIFA World Cup qualification", how about 'during the 2010 World Cup qualifcation stage'?
• "in an 8–0 opening rout of Saudi Arabia at the Sapporo Dome", vague. Does this mean Germany's opening game of the campaign, if so state it succinctly.
• "Klose added two more goals in German's victory" Germany's
• "taking him to 16 World Cup goals, surpassing Ronaldo as the tournament's record goalscorer" → "taking him to 16 World Cup goals and surpassing Ronaldo as the tournament's record goalscorer"
• Ref 6, 7, 8, 9 should be BBC Sport
• Wikilink CNN on Ref 26, not 27
• Fix dashes on Refs 25 and 33. Lemonade51 (talk) 16:56, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@The Almightey Drill: Are you still monitoring this? Harrias ^talk 10:31, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Harrias I executed Lemonade's suggestions, I await the next step '''tAD''' (talk) 14:20, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

• This is not Miroslav Klose's main article, so his name in the lead should not be in bold, but instead wikilinked to his article.
• I think that the summary section should be merged with the lead and trimmed down.
• "Klose added two more goals in German's victory at the 2014 FIFA World Cup..." – Should be "Germany's victory".
• Scores and results list; Germany's goal tally first. – Extra semicolon in there. There should also be an explanation of what is the score column.
• You could add to the goals list the cap number, using this source.
• Why is a goals-per-year table nested under a section titled "National"? Plus, no need for a Germany link atop this table, since he has not played for any other national team.
• A table distributing goals per competition is missing, and maybe one with a the number of goals scored against other national teams by decreasing order.

— Parutakupiu (talk) 00:33, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All done. I agree with the "maybe" on goals by opponents, it's perhaps too much analysis, and the Rooney FA doesn't have it. The lead does include the countries he scored the most against. '''tAD''' (talk) 15:39, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Happy with the improvements. Congrats. Parutakupiu (talk) 17:13, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, as this nomination has been open for 2 months without receiving sufficient attention, I'm going to have to close it as not passed, in order to keep FLC from getting bogged down. Feel free to renominate in the future, and remember that the best way to get other people to review your nominations is to review theirs first. --PresN 15:58, 27 October 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 not promoted by PresN 15:59, 27 October 2015 (UTC) [2].[reply]

Nominator(s): Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:33, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Through the efforts of myself and other editors, this list as been completely redone since the 2011 removal. Station and system ridership data is now current; line ridership data isn't available past 2010, but it's not nearly as important as the stations themselves. All citations are checked and live, unnecessary station codes removed, and {{dagger}} and {{N/A}} used for accessibility. I believe this is back up to FL quality. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:33, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. --Golbez (talk) 08:39, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Golbez: Please leave a more substantive review, or else your support may be discounted- bare supports look like the reviewer only briefly looked at the list. Very few nominations truly have no issues at all, and this is not one of them- a brief check showed that the Rail Connections column is sorting strangely (N/A is sorting under N). --PresN 19:37, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, as this nomination has been open for 2 months without receiving sufficient attention, I'm going to have to close it as not passed, in order to keep FLC from getting bogged down. Feel free to renominate in the future, and remember that the best way to get other people to review your nominations is to review theirs first. --PresN 15:58, 27 October 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 not promoted by PresN 15:59, 27 October 2015 (UTC) [3].[reply]

Nominator(s):  MPJ-US  23:37, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list as the third part of a wrestling trilogy of FLs that already has the NWA World Light Heavyweight Championship and NWA World Middleweight Championship. This article has incorporated everything I learned from the other two FLs (and others) and is a Feature List quality article.  MPJ-US  23:37, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Grapple X: - Thanks for the fast feedback. The only one I am not sure of is the coloring of the NWA Mexico reigns - they are used to indicate who promoted the championship at the time. I get that NWA Mexico is the "new normal" now, but then I say that all CMLL reigns should be colored to indicate the difference. I use the colors to indicate when it is not promoted by the original company. If there is a general consensus that this should be changed I am okay with that. Side note, while this is an active championship the list is much more static than say a WWE championship list, the championships normally do not change hands as often in Mexico - with reigns often lasting over a year. I believe I correctly addressed all the concerns?  MPJ-US  16:32, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, thought I had already come back to this. I'm happy enough to support this based on its current state. GRAPPLE ^X 08:11, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from WillC

• Lead
  • Box looks fine.--WillC 02:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Championship was inactive until just over a year later when the championship was used by Toryumon, making Dragon Kid became the first Toryumon-promoted champion it." to "The Championship was inactive until over a year later when Dragon Kid was made the first Toryumon-promoted champion."--WillC 02:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done, good suggestion.
  • "On June 22, 2011 Cassandro" - needs a comma.--WillC 02:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done
  • "Karloff Lagarde and Américo Rocca" - infobox gives the latter two names--WillC 02:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good catch.
  • Infobox says Great Sasuke has a one day reign as well--WillC 02:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not sure why Sasuke was in the info box, removed and back to two.
• Title history
  • Sorting checks out--WillC 02:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I commend you on showing when it was in which promotion and part of the J-Crown. Good idea.--WillC 02:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There isn't an indication next to the current champion to show the reign is changing daily. Possibly use the cross symbol.--WillC 02:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done and "+" symbol added to the legend at the top.
  • There is a link to vacant in the terms article on english pedia now.--WillC 02:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is? Vacant and Vacated went to something not relevant to championships?
      • Glossary_of_professional_wrestling_terms#V--WillC 14:51, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Reigns by combined length
  • Sorting checks out--WillC 02:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • May not want to use addition symbol twice in the article, may confuse readers.--WillC 02:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • To indicate days passed? I thought that was standard and it's the same symbol for the same thing isn't it?
      • I wasn't paying close attention. It looked like the symbol for NWA Mexico was an addition sign but I see the difference now. Ignore this.--WillC 14:51, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Footnotes
  • Coding works fine, they make sense.--WillC 02:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source for note 3 please.--WillC 02:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sourced Mephisto's weight and threw in the ref from his title win in the table after the note. Cannot put a citation inside the note, I tried but this should work?
• References
  • Should make a external links section with the nwa website. Why isn't this included in the NWA template?--WillC 02:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I took some relevant external links off the NWA Article.
    • They were not in the NWA template because I did not pay attention to non-CMLL title articles. Listed now.
  • Sources check out as reliable.--WillC 02:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Wrestlinglover: - Thank you for all the input, every little thing helps. I hope I have addressed all your concerns?  MPJ-US  04:28, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • @MPJ-DK: I didn't want it to fail due to lack of reviews, figured I'd help out.--WillC 14:51, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I must have forgot. Support --WillC 17:23, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, as this nomination has been open for 2 months without receiving sufficient attention, I'm going to have to close it as not passed, in order to keep FLC from getting bogged down. Feel free to renominate in the future, and remember that the best way to get other people to review your nominations is to review theirs first. --PresN 15:58, 27 October 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 not promoted by PresN 14:05, 20 October 2015 (UTC) [4].[reply]

Nominator(s): Noswall59 (talk) 08:00, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article lists those who have received the highest grades of one of the orders of knighthood in the UK at a time when Britain was a leading power in the world. Due to the number of people awarded the honour since it was founded in 1896, it seems sensible to split it into appointments by reign, and this is the third one I've brought to FLC so far, covering the appointments made by Edward VIII (reigned 1936). It is short, but one of the delegates believes it passes criterion 3, so I am giving it a shot. I believe the article is well-written, with a lead which introduces and summarises the topic well. This article follows the same format as the list of Edward VII's appointments which was promoted to FL in March. It is complete and all items in the list are reliably sourced, as is the lead. Many thanks, —Noswall59 (talk) 08:00, 27 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Please note that I will be unable to respond to queries between the 8th and 16th September.

Comments, all in all a pretty tidy piece of work. I have a few minor points:

• "the remainder was the Lord Mayor of London" As there was only one "remainder" I personally think "other" would be a better choice of word than "remainder".
  • Done
• "to the 15 July 1936" Should just be "to 15 July 1936".
  • Done
• Could the Date of appointment column be made slightly wider in the first table so that the header fits on one line, as in the second list? It would be even nicer if the columns lined up between the two tables!
  • Done
• The notes should all finish with full-stops.
  • Done
• Use {{abbr|Ref|References}} to display Ref in the table header (and be consistent between the two lists whether you use the full-stop at the end: I prefer it without.)
  • Done
• The references could do with expansion: royal.gov.uk and gg.ca would be better written out as The British Monarchy and The Governor General of Canada. Similarly, debretts.com could be Debrett's. The London Gazette articles need dates of publication. Harrias ^talk 20:58, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for reviewing this @Harrias: I believe I have addressed all of the concerns above (as per this edit). Let me know if I've missed anything. All the best, —Noswall59 (talk) 18:28, 29 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Driveby comment - I would like to see some sort of navbox to connect all the RVO-by-monarch lists; it's not currently a quick task to jump from this list to the similar lists from other monarchs, and it should be. --PresN 20:28, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@PresN: Thanks for the comment—I've had a go at creating a template containing all the links. I haven't got round to creating all the articles and this project is very much a work in progress, so I've included red links too. Hopefully this makes navigating it easier. Any further comments would by greatly appreciated. Best wishes, —Noswall59 (talk) 13:13, 7 September 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Also, as I state above, I will not be around from tomorrow to the 16th, but I will be back and responding to comments thereafter. Thanks again, —Noswall59 (talk) 13:14, 7 September 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Unfortunately, with almost 2 months passed without a support, I'm going to have to close this nomination as not passed. Fee free to renominate; and note that the easiest way to convince other people to review your nomination is to review theirs first. --PresN 14:03, 20 October 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 not promoted by PresN 14:05, 20 October 2015 (UTC) [5].[reply]

Nominator(s): — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 11:29, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My second cricket-related featured list. Constructive comments are most welcome. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 11:29, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You already have one list here that has yet to receive any support. You should only nominate a second list when your current one has enough support. NapHit (talk) 11:46, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, you should've been aware of this one: "Users should not add a second featured list nomination until the first has gained substantial support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed." The other list is yet to be reviewed by a single editor. —Vensatry _(ping) 11:49, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Vensatry and NapHit: Oops! Forgot about that! Should I withdraw for now? — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 11:54, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say so, as soon as you're other lists gets enough supports, then it shouldn't be a problem renominating it! NapHit (talk) 12:17, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Crisco 1492, SchroCat, Giants2008, and PresN: I request withdrawal of my nomination. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 12:31, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for striking your withdrawal. Your other list has now a support, and that it does not need to be withdrawn. -- Frankie _talk 14:14, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FrB.TG, it's good that you reviewed the other list, but one support is still a thin-line case. —Vensatry _(ping) 15:08, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not going to close this one, since I never got around to it and your other nom now has ~2.5 supports, but in the future: @Ssven2, FrB.TG, and Vensatry: the rule of thumb for a second nomination is that your first has at least three substantive reviews ending in supports, and no ongoing reviews for a few days minimum. One support really isn't enough. --PresN 19:43, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess I am going to close this one- after almost 2 months without a support, I'm going to have to close this as not passed. Feel free to renominate, and note that the easiest way to get people to review your nomination is to review theirs first. --PresN 14:04, 20 October 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 quick failed by SchroCat 09:25, 16 October 2015 [6].

Nominator(s): Derevation^{Give Me Five} 08:03, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article had fixups of redlinks which were added unneccessarily. and minor fixes added on Derevation^{Give Me Five} 08:03, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose and suggest withdraw
Lead needs to be rewritten, many prose errors, not concise or engaging. Much of it is uncited. The tables are not accessible, mostly uncited. Lots of work needed, ideally one table to cover film roles and one table to cover television roles which are fully cited for Chan appearing them, roles etc. I notice you've done little work on this list before nominating while that does not bar people from nominating, the nominator "must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the FLC process". For FLC,"Ones who are not significant contributors to the list should consult regular editors of the list before nomination." Also please read Wikipedia:Featured list criteria before nominating at FLC. Cowlibob (talk) 18:03, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest Withdrawal – The list isn't FL ready as Cowlibob says. The nominator appears to have made quite a number of faulty GANs as well. —Vensatry _(ping) 07:02, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose as above, but while I'm here, a small sampling of issues:
  • Don't bold links.
  • Link Hong Kong in the lede.
  • "He began his career..." "He then began his film career..." I know "as a stuntman" comes after that second bit, but it's still poorly written. Maybe "His first job as a stuntman...".
  • "films'" is not the plural of "film".
  • Why is Fist of Fury given a year but not Enter the Dragon?
  • Snake in the Eagles Shadow was produced while he was loaned to Seasonal Film Corporation... loaned by whom? This is the first mention of any company.
  • When was he awarded the Silver Bauhinia Star?
• This is merely the first paragraph. The rest does not fare better. This needs drastic work to be considered. --Golbez (talk) 18:10, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been quick failed, 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. This list is lacking in some basics and should should not have been put forward without some heavy work being done on it first. – SchroCat (talk) 09:29, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This was opened by a sockpuppet of TekkenJinKazama. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:44, 21 October 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 SchroCat 07:54, 13 October 2015 [7].

Nominator(s): Jmorrison230582 (talk) 18:15, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the criteria. I am working towards getting all of the Scotland results lists to FL, using the existing FL Scotland national football team 1872–1914 results as a basis to work from. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 18:15, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• It's looking good now, but just one final comment. The by opponent and by season tables need to meet MOS:DTT as well. NapHit (talk) 13:39, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mattythewhite

• I'm not sure about the current title format. I think Scotland national football team results (1920–39) would read better, and follows the format of featured lists like List of Birmingham City F.C. players (25–99 appearances).

I think that would need to go to a move discussion, because it affects other teams with similar articles. Isn't there a guideline which suggests that natural disambiguation should be used where possible (i.e. avoiding the use of brackets)?

Yes, it would probably be best to leave the naming of the title until after this FLC closes. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:23, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Image is lacking alt text.
• Tooltips for "Att." and "Ref."?
• I'd agree with pipeing the scorers.

Agreed. I will put in an initial if there are examples of common surnames.

• Also, I would unlink them after their first instance, as this column is not sortable.

Agreed.

• Is it worth noting who scored the own goal in the match played on 12 April 1924?

Done.

• The "Record by opponent" and "British Home Championship record by season" aren't referenced.

Reference added for the BHC results. I doubt if there would be a reference available for record by opponent by a specific time period. Remove, or is it just a case of WP:CALC?

Couldn't you use the three RSSSF refs you used for the results? Mattythewhite (talk) 19:29, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 18:39, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your edits and feedback. Some comments above. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:02, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• think it is worth mentioning that during this period, Scotland was listed among the top teams worldwide according to the Elo ratings. World Football Elo Ratings says it was #4 and #7 by decade. Nergaal (talk) 22:34, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I think it should be pointed out somewhere that Scotland had not played a single game from 1914 until 1920, and perhaps who were some of the notable players in this period (top goalscorers?). Nergaal (talk) 17:39, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Second sentence of lead has too many clauses for easy reading.
• Minor issue, you use FIFA in FIFA World Cup before you use FIFA on its own.
• For sortable consistency, all goalscorers should be linked each time.
• Grunewaldstadion is piped to Olympic Stadium (Berlin) which redirects to Olympiastadion (Berlin).
• I don't see a need for the "Overall record" table for British Home Championship, it adds no value.
• Ref 3 and Ref 8 need an endash in the title.
• You could put a couple of images in the white space to the right of the two summary tables, brighten things up a bit.
• Record by season table really only needs sourcing once, not every line.

Otherwise a nice list. P.S. I agree with the proposed page move as well... The Rambling Man (talk) 08:59, 6 September 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. – SchroCat (talk) 08:10, 13 October 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 SchroCat 07:54, 13 October 2015 [8].

Nominator(s): Dom497 (talk) 03:15, 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 attractions from the Universal Orlando Resort. The first and second nominations were closed due to a lack of reviewers/activity. Dom497 (talk) 03:15, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Lead could do with an image

Still need an image. NapHit (talk) 13:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "It features two theme parks,..." Is Aquatica not part of the resort?

According to this, nope; however, Wet n' Wild is....so I better get on that!--Dom497 (talk) 03:04, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "opened to the public in..." in should be on

Done.--Dom497 (talk) 03:04, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "Eventually, Universal filed a lawsuit against the manufacture of Jaws, an attraction that was based on the film." I'd be more specific as to why they filed the lawsuit, its intrigued me, so I'm sure more readers would like to know as well. Plus manufacture is not the best word, perhaps construction?

Per the previous sentence, "..several of the parks major attractions experienced frequent mechanical and technical problems, forcing the rides to close." Also, Universal sued the manufacturer of the Jaws attraction, not the construction company.--Dom497 (talk) 15:53, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Is it worth including former rides on this list, seeing as some of them have their own wiki page?

Everyone has different opinions on this but IMO, former and current rides should have their own pages. It allows the respective articles to focus solely on one topic rather than dealing with two broad topics at the same time (if the two articles were combined).--Dom497 (talk) 15:53, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Separate lists is not such a bad idea, would be good to see both. NapHit (talk) 13:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Consider adding a paragraph summarizing the types of rides that are in the parks to provide context to the table and go with the height requirement sentence.

@NapHit: I don't quite understand this. Remember, this is a list, not detailed information about the ride. Detailed ride information should go in it's own article. Also, there is already a column listing the type of ride that it is.--Dom497 (talk) 15:53, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant was just a few sentences stating that the parks consist of live shows, rollercoasters, dark rides etc. Just to give the reader a little bit more context. NapHit (talk) 13:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NapHit (talk) 22:02, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Fails WP:or - 45 of the 56 citations are Primary sources from Universal Orlando Resort. I see promise in the list, but I don't see how this can pass FLC with the majority of the sourcing being Primary.— Maile (talk) 14:41, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Maile66: Two other FL's have mostly primary sources, and though I know it is discouraged, there was no problem in those reviews.--Dom497 (talk) 20:14, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I wasn't a part of those two . Sometimes things get past that shouldn't - it all depends on who does the review, I think. My opinion is but one. So, we'll see what anyone else has to say. — Maile (talk) 20:27, 28 September 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. – SchroCat (talk) 08:10, 13 October 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 SchroCat 07:54, 13 October 2015 [9].

Nominator(s):  — Calvin999 16:45, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because... it documents each and every US Dance Club Songs number-one single of 2014. The lead high lists artists who have achieved the most chart toppers throughout the year, as well as other chartings, records, and achievements. Illustrated with as many images as the length of the list/article will permit me to include. All references are formatted and linked to each week of the chart on the Billboard website.  — Calvin999 16:45, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per 3b. While some FLs still exist on yearly lists, I don't see a reason not to merge such singles list by decade. Splitting them by year is not necessarily informative and does not attract interest from anybody asides its creators. Nergaal (talk) 18:40, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Really? Links to yearly lists are placed on articles which have reached number-one though in the See also section. Having a decade lists would make an article far too long, and makes it harder for people to search.  — Calvin999 18:43, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose As is, does not pass WP:NOTESAL: "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". There are no 3rd party sources at all, not to mention that the topic in general (number-one dance songs) is not typically discussed as a group in independent reliable sources. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 14:43, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can't get much better than Billboard.  — Calvin999 15:54, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Billboard publishes the chart; therefore, not independent of the information. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 16:24, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, no one else publishes this. We use Billboard for all chart tables in articles, and it's not a problem at GAN or FAC, so I don't see how it's different here. Billboard is a reliable source and it's data collected by Nielsen BDS and Nielsen Soundscan. Billboard is the compiler. For the Billboard articles, they are writers who write for the magazine. I don't agree that this is a problem in any way. Billboard is the best and only way to reliably source U.S. charting.  — Calvin999 16:29, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • You're not understanding the point. The fact you state no one else publishes this is a problem. Billboard is the publisher of the chart, so of course it is going to publish the information, Is the chart mentioned in third-party news outlets? Is it notable outside of publication by Billboard? If it isn't then it fails 3b. NapHit (talk) 12:43, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thanks for your evaluation of my capability of understanding, but I think you're missing the point. All music articles use Billboard for everything US chart related. Weekly charts, year end charts, chart history, news reports, etc. Billboard the most reliable source you can get when it comes to US charting info. No one else publishes it because everyone trusts Billboard, that's not to say other media outlet won't comment on something extraordinary, like number-ones or new records. Are any of you even familiar with how music articles are researched and written?? I completely reject this nonsense. Billboard is welcomed at GAN and FAC, so I don't see how this is different.  — Calvin999 14:51, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm not missing the point at all. The fact that Billboard is the sole publisher referenced is a massive problem. I understand music articles will use Billboard, that's not the point, the point is that they will have 3rd party sources discussing them as well. The fact that this list does not is an issue. As it infers that the content is not notable enough to warrant a standalone list. The fact that you can't offer one independent source documenting the list infers that this should not be a standalone list. It's not a question of what happens at GAN or FAC, it is simply measuring this list against the criteria, that is all. NapHit (talk) 21:47, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
              • No, they don't. They use Billboard, because that's the sole provider. It's not a massive problem at all. You won't find many chart performance sections which use anything but Billboard for US charting info. It doesn't matter if you have a yearly list or a decade list as suggested above, the sources will be the same. Clearly, the criteria you speak of is useless and outdated. (You only use Masters and a few BBC out of less than 10 refs on List of Masters Tournament champions, notice it wasn't a problem there......)  — Calvin999 23:04, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You don't get it do you. The fact that the Masters has refs from more than ONE publisher is indicative that it is notable. The Masters is also discussed in multiple media outlets rendering the list notable. Is that the case with this list? That is the question, it's on you to prove that it is. Stop getting so defensive it's doing yourself any favours. NapHit (talk) 10:43, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• How do you propose I source who was number one each week? I'm open to any of your suggestions, if you can produce any. I fail to see how I can source who was number-one and any records or achievements if I can't use Billboard. Other media outlets don't tend to comment on it unless it's a major feat.  — Calvin999 10:47, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You've answered the question yourself here: "Other media outlets don't tend to comment on it unless it's a major feat" which suggests the chart isn't notable. I'm not saying you can't use Billboard, just that if you can't produce independent sources that mention the chart then it indicates it's not notable per our guidelines. NapHit (talk) 11:25, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • This chart is the main Dance chart in the United States, it's not a component. It's been going in various form since the tracking of club plays in the 1970s. That makes it notable. Madonna has 46 number-ones on this chart, more than any other artist on any other chart in US history. Not commenting on something major goes for all US charts, not just this one. Your earlier statements implied that I couldn't use Billboard, which is why I asked how you expected me to source who is number-one each week. Billboard is the only source for that with regard to the table itself.  — Calvin999 11:32, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've added third party sources Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars  — Calvin999 16:44, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I've tried making contact with Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars multiple times on his talk asking him to revisit, as I've done all he asked, but I've had no response despite his online activity.  — Calvin999 08:26, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support — Frankie _talk 10:52, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks.  — Calvin999 19:43, 10 September 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. – SchroCat (talk) 08:10, 13 October 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 SchroCat 07:54, 13 October 2015 [11].

Nominator(s): Sportsguy17 (T • C) 01:27, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets all the criterion. It is well-written, is well-sourced, is comprehensive (includes all major details and doesn't leave anything major out), it is color coded and very accessible, has table sorting, and is stable and not affected by edit wars or content disputes. (On a side note, please be patient in terms of having me address feedback, as I leave for a week-long vacation that lacks internet, so I may not be able to respond until next Saturday). Sportsguy17 (T • C) 01:27, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I am now back and available to respond to feedback. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 18:41, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Overall a very good list and should be an easy pass. I've just made some copyedits, but there are other issues that should be fixed by someone familiar to the system:
  • A color box for the Kenosha Streetcar would make the style consistent.
  • The planned projects section in the lede needs work. SouthEast Service is deader than dead, STARS needs an accurate factual description (endpoints have changed), and other than the one new station the expansions of the other lines aren't really relevant here. Actually both projects are basically dead, so I updated it as such. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 16:21, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider adding right-justified images of various stations in the main section. Not strictly necessary, but it adds visual interest and provides examples of what the list is actually discussing. Other wise, this looks very good. I added three images to start, albeit I can certainly add a few more as necessary, Pi.1415926535. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 04:01, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pi.1415926535 (talk) 14:46, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I know how to add right-justified images and I can fix the lede regarding the proposed strats. If someone else who knows how to use {{Rail color box}} can figure out how to get a color box for the Kenosha Streetcar service, that would be great. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 16:02, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Pi.1415926535: Do you think you would be able to make a {{Rail color box}} for Kenosha's Streetcar system? I unfortunately am not familiar with the rail color box template and therefore do not feel comfortable making it. Once it is made, however, I can add it to the list accordingly I have added it to the list, but there is one small problem at {{Kenosha Transit color}} with the column that should display a sample of the color. If you can fix that, then I think all will be good and I think all of your feedback will have been addressed as far as I'm concerned. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 18:11, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Is there any particular reason for the rail color box text to be "Kenosha Streetcar Line" with the addition of a new redirect instead of using the existing "Kenosha Streetcar" redirect? Lost on  Belmont ^3200N_1000W  (talk) 20:26, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Lost on Belmont: As far as I'm concerned, no. I sort of realized my mistake on the redirect afterward. Feel free to change it accordingly though. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 22:31, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I created {{KAT color}} before I realized you'd created the other template, and that's functional, but I'm also seeing their same display error. Weird. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Pi.1415926535: In that case, I think all of your feedback is addressed. I can add more pictures as needed, but I think for now, it's set. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 03:29, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I'm qualified alone to sign of on this, but it certainly looks good from my perspective. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 15:23, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds about right, I was simply making sure that all of your feedback is addressed. Since it is, I'll just wait for additional feedback from other editors. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 15:50, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

• "It is one of three of the Regional Transportation Authority's service boards." The Metra is a service board? Do you mean it is controlled by one of the RTA's three service boards?
• I think you should give the total mileage of the system. Also, is any figure available on the percentage of commuter journeys by rail and car?
• I would personally have preferred a paragraph on the history of the system to one on proposals which came to nothing. When did it start? What was the first line? How did the number of passengers grow?
• It does not sound right to me describing the central terminuses as "inbound", which I would take to mean going towards the centre. How about "inner" and "outer" instead? (Or is this a difference between USEng and BrEng?)
• There is a big gap between the line and station tables due to the vertically arranged images. Why not arrange them horizontally?
• It is obvious, but for completeness you should explain the wheelchair symbol in the key.
• A good list. These points are fairly minor. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:13, 25 September 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. – SchroCat (talk) 08:10, 13 October 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 Giants2008 01:03, 7 October 2015 [12].

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man, Royroydeb

Another cricket list. Well I've scrubbed this one up a bit, it was in good nick thanks to the sterling work of Royroydeb but needed some tweaks which I applied. It's in good shape, but, as ever, thanks to those of you who contribute, comment, support, etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:23, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Marvan Atapattu is only 713 words long, and already includes bad versions of these tables. As things stand in that parent article, I think this list could very easily be merged into that article, rather than being a standalone list. Harrias ^talk 20:31, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree, I was working off the template, so I suppose this nom should be closed, the work I've done should be merged, even though it's better than the bio article, and I'll live to fight another day? I would prefer the list to live, but if it doesn't, hey, whatever. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:36, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see what sort of state we can improve the main article to over the next few days, this list might still have a chance! Harrias ^talk 08:41, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, sounds good to me, thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:42, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @The Rambling Man and Harrias: It's been nearly five weeks since this comment about whether a standalone list is needed was made. There has been no change in terms of the parent article. Perhaps it's time to merge back this table back to the parent article? Cowlibob (talk) 13:34, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree, it's a shame, but at least the parent article will benefit. Happy (sort of) to withdraw this nomination. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:34, 4 October 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. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:20, 7 October 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.