Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/March 2018

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 PresN via FACBot (talk) 23:31, 30 March 2018 (UTC) [1].

---

List of Airplay 100 number ones of the 2010s

Nominator(s): Cartoon network freak (talk) 15:19, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe everything looks good, although I haven't promoted such a list in the past. The website will be updated with a new number one song every week (until 2020), but I don't think that's a problem. Best; Cartoon network freak (talk) 15:19, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Erick

Resolved comments from magiciandude

• "French singer Imany's song "Don't Be So Shy" spent 12 weeks at number one in 2016, marking the longest spell at the top of the charts in a tie with English recording artist Ed Sheeran's "Shape of You" (2017). " I would just say that "Don't Be So Shy" and "Shape of You" by Ed Sheeran tie for the longest running number-one song of the 2010s with 12 weeks to make it more simple.

 Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 17:33, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

• "The first registered number one of the decade was "Ai Se Eu Te Pego" (2012) by Michel Teló, while Cuban-American performer Camila Cabello and American rapper Young Thug's "Havana" is the current number one in January 2018." I would split this into two sentences and move "Ai Se Eu Te Pego" being the first single just after the sentence about 80 number-one songs in the country. Then for the current number-one song, I would put "as of [insert week here] [song name by artists(s)] is the current number-one song in Romania"

 Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 17:33, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

• I would recommend looking at List of number-one Billboard Top Latin Songs from the 1980s, which is a FL, as it may provide some useful ideas for the prose.

 Done I adjusted some things according to the page you recommended me to look at, but we can't get a that big lead section. There aren't enough sources/coverage for this chart and its history. Cartoon network freak (talk) 17:33, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

That's all I got. Would you care to comment on my FLC for Billboard Latin Music Hall of Fame? Erick (talk) 16:14, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

@Magiciandude: Thank you for your comments! Of course I will look over your FLC. Cartoon network freak (talk) 17:33, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support Great job! Erick (talk) 18:26, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

Resolved comments from Aoba47 (talk)

• All of the images require ALT text.

 Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 18:01, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

• For the captions of the images of the singers, I would the year in which the image was taken to the (pictured) parts.

 Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 18:01, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

• I do not see the need for two Ed Sheeran images.

 Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 18:01, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

• For caption of the Kiss FM logo image, remove the period at the end as it is not a complete sentence.

 Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 18:01, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

• Since the tables are sortable, I think that all of the artists and songs in the tables need to be linked as they can go out of order if a person sorts them in different ways.

 Done I only did what you said to a table. If an artist/a song was linked in a prior table, it isn't linked in the next one. Cartoon network freak (talk) 18:01, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Once my comments are addressed, I will support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 17:21, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

@Aoba47: Thank you for your comments! I did all your suggestions... Best; Cartoon network freak (talk) 18:01, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

• I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 18:06, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments from BeatlesLedTV

Resolved comments from BeatlesLedTV (talk) 18:16, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

* Normally when sorting by name you sort by last name and not first per WP:Sorting. Currently all artists are sorted by last name. (It doesn't apply to artists with only one name such as Vunk and Smiley).  Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:16, 28 January 2018 (UTC) Tables need scope cols on top of scope rows per MOS:ACCESS What should the cols read? I really don't know what text to insert in this situation. Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:16, 28 January 2018 (UTC) Just like this. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 21:50, 28 January 2018 (UTC) Based on how it looks now, it seems as though the artists are the most important subject for the page (as the artist cols are scope rowed and are before the songs). I feel like the focus should be the songs, as this is a singles chart. I would suggest making the song cols the first col (visual editor makes that easy) and scope row-ing the song cols instead. I'm opposing to that, as the songs won't be colored, but the artists and the weeks instead (which doesn't make much sense). Also, I don't think that !scope="row"-ing something make it really more important or not, it's just Wikipedia's guidelines to have that. Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:16, 28 January 2018 (UTC) Yeah you're right it's not that big a deal. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 21:50, 28 January 2018 (UTC) I think the week cols would look better centered but that's just me; I know a lot of editors don't really care about that  Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:16, 28 January 2018 (UTC) That's all I got for you. Great job with this! Especially since I see you published it and nominated it all in the same day. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 19:34, 28 January 2018 (UTC) @BeatlesLedTV: Hi! Thank you very much for your comments; I've responded to them. Best; Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:16, 28 January 2018 (UTC) @BeatlesLedTV: Thank you for your edit! Is everything else to be fixed? Cartoon network freak (talk) 06:15, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support – Yep looks all good to me. Great job to you! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 18:16, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Calvin999

Comments from User:Calvin999

Comments by Calvin999 To avoid confusion with US Billboard article, wouldn't it be a good idea to rename this list 'List of Airplay 100 number ones of the 2010s (Romania)' or something similar? Just a thought. I don't think this is really needed. The titles of the pages aren't really that similar. Cartoon network freak (talk) 15:51, 29 January 2018 (UTC) I just thought as there is a Not to be confused with' tag. It was just an idea.  — Calvin999 15:57, 29 January 2018 (UTC) is an airplay–based and the national singles chart of Romania. → This doesn't read right.  Done Fixed. Cartoon network freak (talk) 15:51, 29 January 2018 (UTC) I think 'Romanian Top 100 ' needs to be mention soon in the first sentence, not in the second. The Romanian Top 100 was the chart that the Airplay 100 "replaced", so I think it fits well in the second sentences. First sentences should always be explanatory to the subject matter. Cartoon network freak (talk) 15:51, 29 January 2018 (UTC) Yes but what the subject matter is should be in the first sentence.  — Calvin999 15:57, 29 January 2018 (UTC)  Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 16:31, 29 January 2018 (UTC) 1996 to 19 February 2012 → I assume you don't know the exact start date, but I'd say '1996 to 2012' would be more uniformed.  Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 15:51, 29 January 2018 (UTC) with the first registered one being → the first being  Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 15:51, 29 January 2018 (UTC) successful artists → successful act  Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 15:51, 29 January 2018 (UTC) the top spot, → too colloqiual  Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 15:51, 29 January 2018 (UTC) longest spell → too colloqiual I really don't know another word for "spell" here. Can you help me out? Cartoon network freak (talk) 15:51, 29 January 2018 (UTC) longest run  — Calvin999 15:57, 29 January 2018 (UTC)  Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 16:31, 29 January 2018 (UTC) and American → featuring American  Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 15:51, 29 January 2018 (UTC) I'd like to see the lead expanded on, with a focus on Romanian/non-US acts, and smaller amount on the international act. The subject here is Romanian, so that should be focus.  Done See below... Cartoon network freak (talk) 16:56, 29 January 2018 (UTC) I think a few parts could be reworded but I'm no commenting on that until the previous bullet point is addressed. Ok... Cartoon network freak (talk) 15:51, 29 January 2018 (UTC) I think the key should be a proper table. I don't know what you mean here... Cartoon network freak (talk) 15:51, 29 January 2018 (UTC) See List of songs recorded by Madonna  — Calvin999 15:57, 29 January 2018 (UTC)  Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 16:31, 29 January 2018 (UTC) Similarly, I don't like how you've segregated number-ones by a Romanian and Romanian single of the year. This is a Romanian subject article, and I don't think it should be singled out, as it almost looks like its been done to separate from the American/international acts and placing more importance, or significance, on them instead. The American/international acts should be secondary.  Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 15:51, 29 January 2018 (UTC) Also, most number-ones are of Romanian origin, so it seems a bit pointless to key it when most of them are anyway.  Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 15:51, 29 January 2018 (UTC) The OCD in me needs to see equally sized tables which match each other. It looks unclean otherwise.  Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 15:51, 29 January 2018 (UTC) The only blue asterisk keyed song seems a bit pointless, I don't understand is sigificance. I had thought there was a 'best selling' Romanian song every year?  Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 15:51, 29 January 2018 (UTC) You don't need to link the same act or song twice. It's over linking.  Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 15:51, 29 January 2018 (UTC) I think one continuous table like List of number-one Billboard Dance/Electronic Songs would be better than separate all of them and a lot easier to navigate.  Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 15:51, 29 January 2018 (UTC) And you also need to add a table for the years to access them quickly as in the example I gave.  — Calvin999 16:01, 29 January 2018 (UTC) Link the acts in By artist  Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 15:51, 29 January 2018 (UTC)  Not done  — Calvin999 15:59, 29 January 2018 (UTC)  Done it now! Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:01, 29 January 2018 (UTC) So many acts have had at least 5 weeks, I'd remove the people who have achieved 5 and 6 weeks to keep it more streamlined in By song.  Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 15:51, 29 January 2018 (UTC) I'm a bit surprised that there are only seven sources, and they are only from Kiss and Media Forest. There needs to be third party sourcing to back up what is essentially self-published. I know this because I haven't been able to get Billboard lists to FA because of not enough third party sourcing, i.e. all of the sources are Billboard. I'm very surprised that this has received two supports from this point alone considering that it is a major point.

I am going to Oppose, for the time being, based on the criteria. For 1) I don't think the prose is of 'professional' standard (yet). 2) That the lead covers all of the scope of the list. 4) That it is easy navigated. 5a) Does not have visual appeal. I do agree that it is 3) Comprehensive (but needs more sourcing) 5b) Has suitable media 6) Stable.  — Calvin999 10:13, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

@Calvin999: Thank you for your first comments! While I will still try to amend the issue concerning the sources, I solved your other comments and expanded the lead. I know it is by far not perfect, but I this that's an acceptable beginning to work with. I would like to get it to a better level with your help. Best; Cartoon network freak (talk) 16:56, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

You've expanded the lead but you haven't sourced the additions, in addition to what needed backing up from third party sources before expanding, so it's amplified my concern about sourcing which is a big issue and unless it's addressed I can't remove my oppose. I'm sorry. It concerns me that this has garnered three supports when such glaring issues remain in relation of sourcing and verification and clearly does not meet the criteria.  — Calvin999 18:45, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

@Calvin999: I will work on the issue later this week, as I've found some helpful links. Please don't close the FLC or such... Thanks; Cartoon network freak (talk) 14:38, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I can't close it, I'm not an FAC delegate. A delegate looks at the candidacy and decides whether to reject or promote based on what reviewers have said.  — Calvin999 15:04, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

@Calvin999: Hi there again! After some research, I found out that a Romanian website (Un site de muzică) which seems to be reliable reported about selected editions of the Airplay 100 beginning with October 2016, as well as provided information on the chart's compilation that can be used to back up that from KissFM.ro. The pre-2016 number-ones can't be cited with magazine articles (etc...) because they don't exist on the internet. However, after even more research, I discovered an iTunes page where each podcast of the Airplay 100 was (and still is) published to listen to for free. Is this ok to back up the weekly chart podcasts published on KissFM.ro? This is all I can do with finding new sources; the Airplay 100 is not a that mediatized subject like Billboard charts & co. Also, I don't think that the facts in the lead must be referenced there, as they are in the article's body by the KissFM.ro page, iTunes page and the Un site de muzică pages. What do you think? Best regards, Cartoon network freak (talk) 19:01, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Calvin999, Any news on this? What do you think of the article now? Best, Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:49, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Calvin999 any thoughts? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:01, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm still not convinced it's of the professional standard that we are looking for in the Featured process.  — Calvin999 10:16, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Calvin999, this comment cannot really be addressed. Can you list your specific concerns please. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:18, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't think the prose is well-written still in terms of sentence structure and grammar. The references are still essentially just chart sources, there isn't any third party. Some entries in the table has citations, some don't. The tables still aren't formatted or structured to the standard I think they should be, and are missing essential elements such as a Skip to Year box.  — Calvin999 10:29, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

@Calvin999: Hi! Can you give me some examples for sentences you think are still not well-written? Someone has copy-edited the article and I have also implemented the comments of User:A Thousand Doors. Regarding the references, this is everything I can do (we do have some third-party sources right now). What do you mean by Skip to Year box? Also, what are other "essential elements"? Best regards, Cartoon network freak (talk) 12:25, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:24, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Oppose "preceeded" -> "preceded".  Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 15:15, 31 January 2018 (UTC) You need to clarify what you mean by "singles". I just removed it, as I think it is not that important here. Cartoon network freak (talk) 15:15, 31 January 2018 (UTC) And why was the preceding chart worth mentioning in the first sentence, why not tell me what the chart means and where it's from, before telling me what it followed?  Done Reconstructed the sentence(ces)Cartoon network freak (talk) 15:15, 31 January 2018 (UTC) " over 80 singles reached " more than  Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 15:15, 31 January 2018 (UTC) "the first one being" no need for "one".  Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 15:15, 31 January 2018 (UTC) "In the same year," a bit odd because you only mentioned the year in parentheses, suggest you fix up the previous sentence so it's clear what year "the same year" relates to.  Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 15:15, 31 January 2018 (UTC) "Romanian singers Laurențiu Duță featuring Andreea Bănică topped " what? Isn't Laurențiu Duță a singer? and Andreea Bănică? So it should be "a single by Romanian artists Laurențiu Duță and Andreea Bănică" or something similar.  Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 15:15, 31 January 2018 (UTC) "while Smiley and Alex Velea replaced each other at the top position several editions." this is not grammatically correct in English. Could you give me a suggestion on how to re-write this? I'm really helpless here. Cartoon network freak (talk) 15:15, 31 January 2018 (UTC) "One of the chart's longest run at number one in history" this is very clunky English. Same as above, can you give me a suggestion? What part is wrong? Cartoon network freak (talk) 15:15, 31 January 2018 (UTC) "claimed the aforementioned position" awkward phrasing.  Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 15:15, 31 January 2018 (UTC) "Other notable reigns" why "notable"? Why not just something like "other songs with multiple weeks at the top of the chart were..."  Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 15:15, 31 January 2018 (UTC) "Are You with Me " lower case w.  Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 15:15, 31 January 2018 (UTC) "by French singer Imany's and" why "'s"??  Done This was a mistake Cartoon network freak (talk) 15:15, 31 January 2018 (UTC) Since this list is about the 2010s, there needs to be clear notification that it's subject to change as it will need to be updated weekly. How can I do that? Cartoon network freak (talk) 15:15, 31 January 2018 (UTC) Something like {{dynamic list}}? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:05, 2 February 2018 (UTC) Sortable table so each linked item should be linked each time.  Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 15:15, 31 January 2018 (UTC) Sam Smith is a dab link.  Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 15:15, 31 January 2018 (UTC) Mid-headings like 2013 don't sort properly. Can you show me what you mean by linking an article? Cartoon network freak (talk) 15:15, 31 January 2018 (UTC) I unsorted it. Follow the example I gave you and it works fine.  — Calvin999 15:17, 31 January 2018 (UTC) "most spins on " too colloquial.  Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 15:15, 31 January 2018 (UTC) Maluma is a dab link.  Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 15:15, 31 January 2018 (UTC) Sia is too.  Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 15:15, 31 January 2018 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 22:16, 30 January 2018 (UTC) @The Rambling Man: Hi there and thank you for your comments. I answered to your points and done most of them, but I need furter clarification for some. I am really willing to work with you and make the article better . Best regards, Cartoon network freak (talk) 15:15, 31 January 2018 (UTC) The Rambling Man, I've done your comment. Any news on other things on here? Best, Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:49, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments from A Thousand Doors

Resolved comments from A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 14:38, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

*"As of 26 February 2012". This is from nearly six years ago. Is there a more recent source? It should mean that the first edition was on 26 February 2012. Do you maybe have a suggestion on how to make it better? Cartoon network freak (talk) 15:54, 15 February 2018 (UTC) In the Pharrell Williams alt text, "hoding" -> "holding"  Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 15:54, 15 February 2018 (UTC) "Somebody That I Used to Know -> "Somebody That I Used to Know"  Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 15:54, 15 February 2018 (UTC) Similarly, all the number ones in October 2017 are missing terminating quotation marks in their song titles.  Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 15:54, 15 February 2018 (UTC) The "By song" table says that Happy only topped the chart for seven weeks.  Done This was a mistake. Whoops! Cartoon network freak (talk) 15:54, 15 February 2018 (UTC) "latin" -> "Latin"  Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 15:54, 15 February 2018 (UTC) "Rang'N'Bone" -> "Rag'N'Bone"  Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 15:54, 15 February 2018 (UTC) "feight" -> "fight"  Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 15:54, 15 February 2018 (UTC) "spectaculously" and "spectaculous". Not sure that these are words. I'm guessing you want "spectacularly" and "spectacular" instead.  Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 15:54, 15 February 2018 (UTC) A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 15:58, 9 February 2018 (UTC) @A Thousand Doors: Hi there and thank you very much for your comments! I will work on them more closely this weekend and I have just included the page in the WP:GOCE/REQ entries row. Thanks again!! Best; Cartoon network freak (talk) 11:15, 10 February 2018 (UTC) @A Thousand Doors: I have finally responded to your comments! Thank you; Cartoon network freak (talk) 15:54, 15 February 2018 (UTC) I think this article would benefit from a thorough copy-edit, as some of the prose is not up to FL standards. For example, the opening sentence describes the Airplay 100 as "the national chart of Romania", but the navbox at the bottom shows that there are at least four. Should it therefore really be "a national chart of Romania" (or similar)? There are also errors like "at the top position several editions" and "although not reaching number one". I have asked for a copy-edit (and received it) but it should remain "the" national chart. Other charts in the box are something like component charts. Cartoon network freak (talk) 15:54, 15 February 2018 (UTC) Personally, I'd suggest that the opening sentences could be something along the lines of "The Airplay 100 is the national record chart of Romania. It is compiled weekly by Media Forest, and measures the airplay of songs on radio stations and television channels throughout the country. As of 26 February 2012, each week's chart is aired as a podcast on Kiss FM hosted by Cristi Nitzu." Consider this at your own discretion though. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 14:38, 23 February 2018 (UTC)  Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 16:24, 23 February 2018 (UTC) I see that you've removed the sortability for the table. Personally, I think it's more of a benefit to our readers to have the table sortable. If you're concerned that the mid-headings aren't sorting properly, I might be able to fix that for you. It would be nice if you could that. Thank you! Cartoon network freak (talk) 15:54, 15 February 2018 (UTC) I just tried my workaround solution and it didn't work. Sorry about that. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 14:38, 23 February 2018 (UTC) Don't worry... Cartoon network freak (talk) 16:24, 23 February 2018 (UTC) On 5 February 2017, did "The Greatest" spend three weeks at number one, or just one? "The Greatest" only spent one week at number one. From 5 to 26 February, there was no edition of Airplay 100 or it was deleted. Cartoon network freak (talk) 15:54, 15 February 2018 (UTC) It might be worth including this in the Notes section then, as this confused me. Are there any other examples of this happening? A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 14:38, 23 February 2018 (UTC)  Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 16:24, 23 February 2018 (UTC) The Carla's Dream image says that the act is a "musical project", but the photo implies that it's a single person. More clarity is needed here. Is the image of the leader of the music project, or just a member, or someone else entirely? Ideally, the photo would be cropped to remove the other guy entirely – I can do that for you, if you'd like. It would be, again, nice if you could that. Many thanks! Cartoon network freak (talk) 15:54, 15 February 2018 (UTC)  Done Available here. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 14:38, 23 February 2018 (UTC) Thank you; I've added it! Cartoon network freak (talk) 16:24, 23 February 2018 (UTC) "Octomber" -> "October"  Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 16:24, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Oppose I'm afraid that I'm inclined to agree with Calvin that this article isn't at FL standard just yet.

• My main issue is the lead. Only two sentences out of 10 are cited, which suggests that there might be WP:OR issues. Are there anymore reliable, third-party sources that discuss this chart during the 2010s? What sort of things do they say?

The sources presented in this article are – sadly – the only ones to find about the chart online. While on one hand I understand your concerns about original research, on the other hand the lead only contains only information cited in the article's body, although not directly cited by a source but rather by me listening to the podcasts and figuring out things (e.g. who was the artist with the most no.1s in the history...). Cartoon network freak (talk) 15:54, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

A lack of third-party sources is a serious issue, not just with regards the FL criteria, but the verifiability and notability guidelines too. With the exception of Un site de muzică, all the sources in this article come from either Kiss FM (who broadcast the chart) or Media Forest (who compile it). Having references from so few third-party sources can open up questions about bias and neutrality. I've had a look myself for more sources and have also come up empty-handed, so I don't think this is a problem with your researching skills. Clearly a lot of work has gone into this article, but I'm afraid that I still don't believe that it meets the FL criteria in its current state. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 14:38, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I got you. This is really a problem surrounding this article. Cartoon network freak (talk) 16:24, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

• Finding more references might also beef up the lead, which, by my estimation, is rather brief. It's covering six years of chart history, but it's only 314 word long, and more than half of it is dedicated to listing the songs that spent extended periods of time at number one. Is there anything else that you can say? For example, how does Media Forest compile the chart? Is every radio station in Romania sampled, or just some of them? Is music streaming also included? Are there any quotes from artists who have topped the chart? How is the chart viewed within the industry? Are there any record labels that perform better than others?

This is the only information I can include in the lead, really. We can maybe do some things here and there, but there is not enough coverage of the chart online to write about the things you've mentioned. Cartoon network freak (talk) 15:54, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

This echoes my point above about lack of coverage. With so few independent sources writing about the chart, the lead almost feels to me like it's being padded by just listing which songs spent extended periods of time at number one, and that just doesn't make for an engaging read. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 14:38, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I got you... Cartoon network freak (talk) 16:24, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

• Artists need to sort under their surname. I can talk you through how to do this, if you'd like.

Is there a special setting or such? Cartoon network freak (talk) 16:24, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Not a setting per se, but Template:Sortname is usually pretty useful for sorting by surname. So you'd have, for example. {{Sortname|Michel|Teló}}, {{Sortname|Elena|Gheorghe}} and {{Sortname|Pharrell|Williams}}. Not so sure that this template supports interlanguage links, now that I think about it... In those instances, you might have to use Template:Sort and do something like {{Sort|Velea, Alex|{{Interlanguage link|Alex Velea|ro}}}} instead. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 21:52, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

 Done. I didn't apply this in cases like "Carla's Dreams", "What's Up" and "Grasu XXL", where the second part is not really a surname. Btw, the template supported interlanguage links. Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:56, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

• Similarly, "The Greatest" needs to sort under G.

Same as above. Cartoon network freak (talk) 16:24, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

 Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:56, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I'd use "{{Sortname|The|Greatest|The Greatest (Sia song)}}" for this.

• "the news No.1" -> "the new No.1"

I can't find this. Cartoon network freak (talk) 16:24, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

It's in the first bullet point in citation 19. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 21:52, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 14:38, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for noticing! Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:56, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

@A Thousand Doors: Hi there again! I understand your points above and I also implemented what was to be implemented. I have also answered to your additional comments. Best regards and thank you for your opinion... Cartoon network freak (talk) 16:24, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

@A Thousand Doors: I have done your other comments. Is there anything else that needs to be revised? Best regards, Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:56, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

@A Thousand Doors: Have your concerns been addressed or does your oppose still stand? --PresN 15:25, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

• The nominator has clearly a put a lot of work into this article, but unfortunately I still have concerns that it doesn't quite represent Wikipedia's best just yet. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 12:15, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

@Calvin999: A couple other reviewers have come through since you; have your concerns been addressed or does your oppose still stand? --PresN 15:25, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

• I still don't think it is. I still have (the same) issues regarding sourcing and overall standard of the article.  — Calvin999 09:28, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Alright; I understand how frustrating it can be to feel like you've addressed concerns as much as you can and still meet opposes, but at this point there's been 2 outstanding opposes for a while, and no comment at all for 2 weeks. I'm going to have to close this out; if you're ever able to resolve the opposers' concerns, feel free to re-nominate. --PresN 21:07, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

• 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.

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 PresN via FACBot (talk) 23:30, 12 March 2018 (UTC) [2].

---

List of box office records set by Deadpool (film)

Nominator(s): adamstom97 (talk) 23:54, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Deadpool is the highest grossing R-rated film of all time, breaking numerous box office records upon its release. This is a comprehensive, easily followed list of these records, which I believe meets all the FL criteria. No concerns with the article were expressed during a peer review, but any suggestions for improvement are most welcome here. Thanks, adamstom97 (talk) 23:54, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Resolved comments from BeatlesLedTV (talk) 19:06, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

;Comments from BeatlesLedTV That's funny the accolade list for this film is an FLC as well! Anyways, moving on: Almost every sentence in the last lead paragraph should have a ref (the one about opening in 80 markets I think can be an exception) Also ref the sentence about how Reynolds' portrayal in Origins: Wolverine was not well received 10 → ten Not sure if the wisecracking wiktionary link is necessary Remove the "(with values given here in the United States dollar)." from the lead and move it just under the records heading (obviously change it to something like "All values given in United States dollars) Add alt text to the film logo That's all I got. Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 01:47, 27 January 2018 (UTC) Thanks for your comments BeatlesLedTV! The sentences in that last lead paragraph which you are referring to are sourced in the body of the article, with that paragraph just giving a summary of those in the usual lead style. For the number 10, it can be either numerals or spelled out per MOS:NUMS, and for consistency this is the style we have been using for the Deadpool articles. The link to wisecracking is also consistently used throughout the articles, and also potentially came about in the GA review of Deadpool (film), though I'm not positive on that. Other than those points, I believe I have covered your concerns. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:14, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support – All good for me. Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 19:06, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Comment I think we need a community discussion about this kind of article. I'm seeing stuff like "Biggest opening day for an M18-rated film in Singapore ($205 thousand)[19]" and thinking, TRIVIA! So right now, it's oppose but I'd like to see who else comments on this and how. Right now, most of the significant box office records would be covered in a paragraph in the main article. I currently see no reason for this spinoff to exist. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:46, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

The one TRM cited isn't the one that caught my eye, it was this one; "Biggest opening day for a 15-rated Fox film in the United Kingdom ($3.4 million)" So the triple intersection of country, rating, and studio to make a "record". I don't see this as an FL, or even an article that needs to exist at all. Trim down significantly and merge back into the main article on the film. Courcelles (talk) 02:46, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose I have to agree with The Rambling Man. This page is full of very obscure trivia that could be summarized in a paragraph in another article. We already have List of accolades received by Deadpool (film), would this fit in nicely there? I don't see a reason to have a separate list page just for this trivia. Mattximus (talk) 16:00, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

What are you guys defining as trivia? This is a pretty compact list, and it is all deemed noteworthy by pretty reliable sources. It also does not seem any less notable or trivial than the sorts of things that WP:SALAT recommend as appropriate lists, just maybe something that you do not find so interesting. For instance, under "Lists of subtaxa" it notes that in an article on organisms it would be appropriate to note a couple of examples, but if there are a few to list then a full and complete separate list should be written. Similarly, I don't think it is appropriate to be dealing with lots of box office records at the film article, so I started putting together this list, and I therefore did what I could to make it full and complete. Personally, being able to see a short list of all the box office records that a box office-noteworthy film set is far more interesting than a list of subtaxa, and helps contribute to a thorough topic on this film. If there was consensus to not have separate lists for box office records then I would understand, but there is not, so I think it is a bit unfair to say it is not FL quality because of a community consensus that does not yet exist. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:26, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm seeing trivial intersections which create pseudo-records which aren't really notable at all. I have also said that I'd like more community input. What other FLs are there for box office records? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:41, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I believe there are none, as there are not many lists like this. However, I don't believe that effects the quality of this one. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:45, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I didn't suggest that, I just wondered if there were any box office record lists and if any of them had been made into FLs. Regardless, my !vote stands, there's simply too much trivia in here for me. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:19, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

My vote stands as well. "Biggest opening weekend for a Fox film in Hong Kong" is is an example of non-notable trivia. Also, I don't even know what "Biggest opening weekend for the X-Men film series in Germany " has to do with this film. Is it really an X-men series film? Regardless, the key points can be summarized in a paragraph in either the main page or as an abridged list in the accolade list. There is no reason to have this additional page. Mattximus (talk) 14:34, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

PresN, Giants2008, this needs a look at from one of you to advise on the way ahead. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:53, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I think Giants is still out, but this is an oppose from me too, and consideration for AfD. No offense to the nominator, and I recognize the amount of effort put in to finding and sourcing these records, but there's a ton of non-notable trivia here. "Biggest IMAX opening weekend for February in North America", "Highest advance ticket sales for February on Fandango in North America", "Biggest opening day for a Fox film in Hong Kong", etc., etc. Nearly every one of them is a triple intersection just to make a small enough niche that it could be a "record" - biggest (weekday) release of a (format) film in (month) in one particular (region)... that's trivia. Additionally, even if that was successfully argued away, the list gives no context. For example, how many "Biggest Premium Large Format R-rated opening(s) in North America" have there been? How many "IMAX opening weekend(s) for a February in Taiwan"? Like, are these records out of hundred or thousands of films? Out of twelve releases? If $55 thousand per screen is the biggest IMAX opening weekend in February in France ever, what's second place, or average? Is it a big record, or just barely higher than second place? I suspect the answer is that neither you nor anyone else knows, because these aren't things that are really tracked, these are puff "records" called out by the film's back company in order to get cheap PR blurbs. --PresN 03:16, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• 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.

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