Knowledge (XXG)

< Knowledge (XXG):Featured list candidates‎ | Failed log

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 Knowledge (XXG) talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was archived by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 29 October 2018 (UTC) .

---

Nominator(s): TompaDompa (talk) 12:17, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm nominating this for featured list after some extensive cleanup since it was noted in the (ultimately unsuccessful) Featured list nomination for the corresponding Deadpool list that there are currently no featured lists for box office records and I can frankly say that none of the five such lists were in any shape to be featured. I think this is something that should be remedied considering that there are numerous WP:Featured lists for accolades received by films, and going by the WP:Featured list criteria I believe this list is now ready to be nominated. TompaDompa (talk) 12:17, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Quick comment on a section heading: "United Kingdom, Ireland and Malta" - why on earth are these three countries bundled together? It makes about as much sense as having "US, Canada and Portugal"....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:04, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: I agree that it is somewhat odd (though not as odd as your comparison would make it seem – Malta only gained independence from the United Kingdom in 1964). However, for box office purposes these three countries are regarded as a single market in much the same way as the United States and Canada are (see Box Office Mojo). TompaDompa (talk) 13:19, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I looked through the sources cited in that section and didn't see Malta mentioned, so I removed it. TompaDompa (talk) 00:52, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I had missed the FLC for the article mentioned (I never watched Deadpool) but agree with them and may even want to nominate these for AFD. "Highest non-opening week Tuesday gross"? This is as trivial as it gets. "Highest December opening day gross": This is pretty granular, not really a record. Sure, boxofficemojo compiles these trivial statistics and Deadline Hollywood reports them but we get it, the movie sold a lot of tickets everywhere. I suppose you could put a bit more in the Box Office section of the main article but I do not believe this is an encyclopedic topic and oppose. Reywas92 04:12, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

@Reywas92: If the problem is that individual entries are trivial or too granular, that can be fixed by removing those entries – the problem with the Deadpool list was that there would barely be anything left after doing so. If the problem is that the topic is WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC, you should be able to be more specific than that – does it fail WP:NOT? Is box office performance inherently unencyclopedic? Is a film's box office reception less encyclopedic than its critical reception? TompaDompa (talk) 05:15, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

I would say a separate article of these statistics is as unencyclopedic as a separate article for its reviews. We can leave details about specific reviews to Rotten Tomatoes and details about specific box office records to Box Office Mojo, and summarize the highlights in the main article. If we get rid of the granular stats, Star_Wars:_The_Force_Awakens#Box_office has more than enough details that cover/duplicate the rest and to have a fork of all these records is purely trivia. Reywas92 05:33, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

The proper analogy here is not individual reviews for the film, but accolades received by it (of which there are—as noted above—numerous WP:Featured lists). Reviews would be analogous to markets, or perhaps weekends. TompaDompa (talk) 06:29, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Gonzo_fan2007

« Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:20, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

*The "Record Grosses" table has accessibility issues. You need to use symbols and colors to highlight specific pieces of data. You also need to explain what "Sa" "Wknd" "m" mean. Maybe try the {{Abbr}} template. I also am not a fan of the legend for the table being hidden in a footnote. I personally feel the "Notes" section is overkill. If you absolutely think this is necessary, the data could be better visualized in a table so the reader doesn't have to jump back and forth from the article to the notes section. Your Box Office Mojo references need to be standardized across the whole article. The website= value in your references changes from Box Office Mojo, Box Office Mojo, boxofficemojo.com, etc. A significant amount of your sources say they were accessed back in 2015. Can I presume you visited all the websites a little more recently than that? The access date is key because it provides a reference to when the web site was last verified. Personally, I feel the external links section is unnecessary. I would challenge File:Star Wars The Force Awakens.jpg is improperly tagged and a copyvio problem. The license asserts that the "threshold of originality" is not met by the image, however the style, color scheme, and the actual name of the movie being added throw it over the threshold in my opinion. I find the lead lacking significantly: There is no explanation of why this film broke all these records. Context should be added that explains how it was the first Star Wars film in so many years, has a new cast but keeps some of the old characters, Abrams as director, etc. There are no inline citations in the lead. With how long the list is, it is difficult to find the specific citation for the assertions in the lead, which can be fixed by adding inline citations. "first through third weekend" needs an "s" at the end of "weekend". I also have to agree with Reywas92 above that I harbor some concerns about the article in general. I don't know that I would AFD it, but I can see this as being almost impossible to keep up to date as other movies set these records. Also, as I mentioned above, the readability of the article is difficult with all the footnotes. As was mentioned above, half of these records I was completely unaware were actually records. I think something that is tightened up in scope (not every single record ever), has more prose to set the context, and the removal or conversion to prose/table of most of the notes section would serve this list well. Hope this helps. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:05, 4 August 2018 (UTC) @Gonzo fan2007: I added symbols, explained abbreviations, and moved the legend to the bottom of the table. I converted the list to a table. The Box Office Mojo references have been standardized. I had visited all the sources during this year without updating the access dates, and have gone through them again and updated the access dates to 2018. The external links section has been removed. I removed the image. The WP:LEAD has been expanded, inline citations have been added, and a plural "s" has been added. I don't think it will be all that difficult to keep up to date. Each record will only need to be updated once, when it is surpassed. The biggest problem in that regard is that there aren't really any serious trackers that keep track of records like Box Office Mojo or The Numbers for markets other than the US/Canada one (i.e. the problem lies in the Americentrism of the field). As for the footnotes, I personally thought they improved readability because they made it possible to keep the entries much briefer. I never had a problem with having to jump back and forth since my desktop browser reveals the contents of the notes when hovering the cursor—and on mobile clicking the notes does the same thing—but perhaps that is not true of all devices and browsers? It's changed now, anyway. As for tightening up the scope, I have to admit I'm not quite sure what entries you think don't belong. I removed a number of month-specific records which I thought might be overly narrow, but could you perhaps give me some pointers in that regard? TompaDompa (talk) 10:32, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support I think this looks much better. I may give it a quick copyedit if I have time, but for now I am comfortable with the list. I believe it meets all the criteria. Nice work! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:17, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your input! TompaDompa (talk) 15:30, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Comment how many of these records have reliable source coverage outside the The Numbers website and Box Office Mojo website? I mean, how many of them are really truly notable, e.g. coverage in things like The New York Times, The Guardian or even Empire? Movie fansites will make up all kinds of intersections for the purpose of trivia, e.g. "Highest non-opening week Wednesday gross", why would anyone ever consider that to be of any encyclopedic value? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:44, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Quite a few (and even more if you also include Deadline Hollywood). Those sources aren't always that good at quantifying the records however, which is why most of the list is sourced to Box Office Mojo, The Numbers, and the like.
I agree that trivial entries such as overly narrow intersections have no place on these types of lists (as my track record at for instance Talk:List of box office records set by Deadpool and Knowledge (XXG):Featured list candidates/List of Black Panther box office achievements/archive1 shows), and I have removed a number of such entries already as part of my cleanup effort to get this up to WP:FL standards. If you think that some of the remaining entries should be removed for the same reason, I would be open to your suggestions. TompaDompa (talk) 22:45, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Not sure you answered my question. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:54, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps I misunderstood what you were asking. I took your question to mean roughly "Are these records only covered by box office trackers (BOM, The Numbers) or by other (news) sources as well?", and my answer was "The latter." TompaDompa (talk) 23:15, 30 September 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. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:05, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

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 Knowledge (XXG) talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was withdrawn by The Rambling Man via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 19 October 2018 (UTC) .

---

Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 00:25, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello everyone! The above is a list of the awards and nominations received by actress Megan Fox, well known for her role in the Transformers film franchise. I actually like Fox despite her rather negative public opinion, and enjoyed her performance in Jennifer's Body. I have used the List of awards and nominations received by Matthew McConaughey as a model for this nomination. For those interested, this is what the list looked like prior to my expansion. I would greatly appreciate any feedback or suggestions. Have a great rest of your day and/or night! Aoba47 (talk) 00:25, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

• Quick drive-by comment to remind me to come back later - the lead has "Golden Schomoes Award" - I don't think this is the correct spelling........... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:40, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

• Revised; thank you for the coment. Aoba47 (talk) 18:15, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

• "earned her Golden Schmoes Award for Best T&A of the Year" => "earned her a Golden Schmoes Award for Best T&A of the Year"

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 08:03, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

• "It was her final appearance in the Transformers film franchise, after being fired" => "It was her final appearance in the Transformers film franchise, after being fired....". This suggests that she was fired before the film, which I presume she wasn't, so it would be better to day "It was her final appearance in the Transformers film franchise, as she was fired...."

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 08:03, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

• "she received a nomination from Alliance of Women Film Journalists" => "she received a nomination from the Alliance of Women Film Journalists"

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 08:03, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

• "In 2015, Fox starred as April O'Neil in the 2014 superhero film" => in 2015 she starred in a 2014 film? That isn't right, surely.......?

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 08:03, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

• "While receiving a Kids' Choice Awards nomination for Favorite Movie Actress, she won a Golden Raspberry Award for Worst Supporting Actress." - she didn't receive the latter award while she was receiving the former, so change "while receiving" to "although she won"

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 08:03, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

• "Fox has been nominated for four Teen Choice Award" => "Fox has been nominated for four Teen Choice Awards"

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 08:03, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

• "Certain award groups do not simply award one winner, as they may recognize several recipients and have runners-up. Since this is a specific recognition and is different from losing an award, runner-up mentions are considered wins in the awards tally." - I'm afraid I don't understand this. Does this mean that we count being a runner-up as winning the award? Why would we do that? To my mind being runner-up is no different to simply being an unsuccessful nominee at something like the Oscars.......

• I took the notes from the List of awards and nominations received by Matthew McConaughey, but I agree that they are weird so I removed them. Aoba47 (talk) 08:03, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

• "Organizations without a Knowledge (XXG) page are not included in list of accolades." - is this really necessary? Do we need to highlight that non-notable awards are omitted?

• See above. Aoba47 (talk) 08:03, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
• Hope these help -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:31, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

• @ChrisTheDude: Thank you for the comments so far, and apologies for all of the silly mistakes. I should have read it more carefully before nominating it >< lol. Hope you are having a great week so far. Aoba47 (talk) 08:03, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support - apologies for forgetting to check back sooner, all looks good to me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:25, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 10:59, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

• Article is formatted well, the image has a valid alt, prose is great and all of the entries are referenced. It also has a very neutral point of view considering the lead section focuses equally on awards as well as dishonors. I support this for FL promotion.--NØ 11:36, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 10:59, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

• @Giants2008:@PresN:@The Rambling Man: Hello. Could you please withdraw and archive the above nomination, as I do not have the time to devote to it at the moment? Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 01:23, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

• 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.

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 Knowledge (XXG) talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was withdrawn by The Rambling Man via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 3 October 2018 (UTC) .

---

Nominator(s): Tone 14:42, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Following the promotion of List of World Heritage Sites in Bosnia and Herzegovina to a FL, the list in Macedonia is the only remaining of the former Yugoslav republics that is not a FL. Admittedly, it is the shortest one (1 site + 3 tentative sites), but it is comprehensive and factual nonetheless. The style is coherent with the BiH list, addressing all the issues raised there. Tone 14:42, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Resolved comments from TompaDompa (talk) 17:23, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments The tentative sites are the Cave Slatinski Izvor, a geological formation Markovi Kuli, and the megalithic archaeo-astronomical complex Kokino. – the indefinite article should be definite, because this can be interpreted as two sites. There's not really any reason for a single-entry table to be sortable (and not much of a reason for a three-entry one either). As of 2017, Macedonia recorded three sites on its tentative list – it's 2018 now. The sites, along with the year they were included on the tentative list, are listed below. is unnecessary and should be removed. It would be nice to have a photograph of the Cave Slatinski Izvor. Slatina river should be linked if there is an article for this particular river of that name (I note that there are several). the last ice age – all the words should be linked, or the reader will assume the link goes to ice age. If there is an article for Tatićev Kamen, it should be linked. It looks a bit weird to link the second instance of "solstice" rather than the first. "declination" should be linked.

I also have to admit that I have some non-negligible reservations about endorsing so short a list for WP:FL status, even if it is comprehensive in the sense that it is exhaustive. TompaDompa (talk) 16:14, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Fixed the comments above, compliments to your sharp eye ;) I could not find any useful images on Commons for the cave, just for the surroundings, which I prefer not to use. The article for the river exists on mk wiki, which I linked. Tatićev Kamen does not have a separate article. I cannot do much regarding the 1+3, though. --Tone 16:57, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Neutral. TompaDompa (talk) 17:23, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

• Strong oppose I believe this page needs to be redirected to the List of World Heritage Sites in Southern Europe. Criterion 3(b) was added specifically to avoid lists similar to this one getting featured. A page with just one item is not a list.--Cheetah (talk) 19:13, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
  • There are tentative sites that do not appear in the regional listings, and those are relevant. --Tone 12:17, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
    • They will always be secondary information however relevant you make them to be. Actual World Heritage Sites will always be the primary information in these lists. Now, there is just one World Heritage Site in the Republic of Macedonia. It is impossible to make a list out of just one site.--Cheetah (talk) 17:52, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose – Sorry, but I have to agree with Crzycheetah. While I'm okay with considering the tentative sites worthy of credit as entries, that still leaves only four locations that could "reasonably be included as part of a related article", which the featured list criteria call a 3b violation. I've liked your other similar World Heritage Site lists, but I can't consider a list with four items in it to represent our best work. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:09, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
  • @Giants2008: Ok, in that case it will probably be best if I withdraw the nomination and consider it in a couple of years, if more entries show up on the list. I will probably go ahead with the Albania list then, which I worked on in the meantime. Thanks! --Tone 10:40, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

• 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.

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 Knowledge (XXG) talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was archived by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 3 October 2018 (UTC) .

---

Nominator(s): Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:09, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Black Panther was one of the surprise box office hits of 2018. During the GA nomination of the film article, it was determined that there was enough info on that article to justify separate off all of the box office accomplishments of the film to its own separate list. As such, great care was taken to format and curate the information from the film article (as it existed as prose) into a comprehensive list. Since the film is no longer in theaters, and all info has been provided for each box office achievement, I feel the list is ready to be nominated for a featured list and has meet all nomination criteria. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:09, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose This has the same inherent issue of mostly consisting of non-notable WP:TRIVIA that led to List of box office records set by Deadpool not being promoted to WP:Featured list status and later being turned into a redirect to Deadpool (film)#Box office. Things like "Reaching $1 billion: 16th Walt Disney Studios film", "Highest-grossing film in an opening weekend at 150 AMC Theatres", "Eighth-highest opening day ever", and "Fifth-highest Hollywood film opening weekend gross in South Korea" simply have no place on a WP:Featured list, and what little would remain after removing the cruft does not merit a separate article. Suggest WP:BLAR to Black Panther (film)#Box office. TompaDompa (talk) 19:35, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Given the article was created from the GA nom of the film article because that article was too lengthly, definitely don't feel BLAR should occur. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:35, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
    • I don't think there's any problem or contradiction here. The content was removed from the main article because it was too lengthy – this I think was a good decision, because that section was overly long. The removed content was then added to a new, separate list – this I think was a bad decision, because the content itself was not worth keeping. Merging the contents back would be a bad decision because it would make the section on the main article too long again. Turning the list into a redirect to the relevant section of the main article would in effect be undoing the mistake of creating the list in the first place. The only entry I think might be worth merging back to the main article is the Monday gross record for North America; all other information worth keeping is already there. TompaDompa (talk) 23:11, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
• TompaDompa has been a significant contributor to this list, thus they should strike their "Oppose" statement and should refrain from giving an additional Support/Oppose statement given such. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:34, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

While it is true that I have made a large number of edits to the page, most of those were reverted by other editors (as you well know). This is reflected in the authorship measure of the page – mine is low, as most edits I have made were not retained. I don't think that constitutes being a significant contributor. I'll also note that the Template:FLC-instructions say that editors should indicate that they have been significant contributors if they support, not that they should refrain from supporting, commenting, or opposing if they have been significant contributors. It's a bit odd to argue that the content-related objections I have are not valid in a WP:FLC discussion simply because I've raised them before and (unsuccessfully) tried to implement changes that would address those objections. TompaDompa (talk) 09:19, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Please read my initial statement carefully. I didn't say your comments should be removed (those are perfectly valid to include if you choose), only your "official" "Oppose", given you have been a significant editor on the article, regardless of if those edits were retained or not. So my thoughts on this is you should adjust your stance from "Oppose" to simply "Comment", and then we should proceed with another, uninvolved editor(s) reviewing the list.. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:28, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

I disagree with your interpretation of Template:FLC-instructions with regards to both what counts as being a significant contributor and how being a significant contributor affects what one should and should not do in WP:FLC discussions. However, I suppose it doesn't really matter – the closer will be able to assess the situation for themself when the time comes. TompaDompa (talk) 16:20, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

FLC delegate note- we don't just add up opposes and supports, but read through the actual discussion, so it doesn't much matter whether or not a review has a bolded word at the front. The intention of flc-instructions is that editors who heavily edit a page should not !vote support without indicating that they are involved, so as not to give the impression of independent support. I don't have any issue with an editor formally opposing a nomination for an article that they've worked on, whether or not those edits were undone. What matters are the arguments they make about if the nomination should or should not be passed. --PresN 18:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Oppose Unfortunately this article is full of trivia that is not really encyclopedic. Examples are throughout the page, but "Highest-grossing February opening in Bolivia" would, by anyone's estimate, be trivial. I really think this entire list page can be summarized into 1 well-written paragraph and placed in the main Black Panther article highlighting the significant box office records. Mattximus (talk) 18:25, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose and suggest trimming and merging. My comments at Knowledge (XXG):Featured list candidates/List of box office records set by Star Wars: The Force Awakens/archive1 hold here too, and I do not believe Knowledge (XXG) should be the place for listing detailed statistical trivia of this sort, especially as inflation and growing global markets make records easier to break as time goes on. Reywas92 21:01, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

• Comment to the 2 users above, I disagree that the article is full of trivia. Also in regards to reducing and merging, please see this version of the film article before the GA review in terms of its size and content, versus the current section. This list was a result of the Good Article review for the film article, to help reduce the overall size of that article, when all of this info was listed there much in a fashion you are suggesting be done now. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:19, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • See my reply above. In short, the clutter should have been removed outright back then, not moved to a separate list. TompaDompa (talk) 23:11, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose things like "Fourth-highest grossing fifth weekend" are really too trivial to even contrive, let alone record and claim as some kind of encyclopedic accomplishment. Far too many of these, and once they've been excised as serving little-to-no purpose, what's left should be merged back into the main article. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:56, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

• Comment PresN, Giants2008, suggest this one is put out of its misery. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:49, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

  Comment PresN, Giants2008, I'll say it once more, I suggest this one is put out of its misery. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:51, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

• Sorry, missed this somehow. Agreed, I think we've reached consensus. Please note that at this point we've had the same result from several of these "List of box-office records"; while I note that there have been changes between each nomination, I think it's a fair warning that a more severe change is likely to be needed if a future similar nomination is to succeed. --PresN 19:44, 2 October 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.