Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of roller coaster rankings/archive2

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates
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 promoted by The Rambling Man 10:02, 12 April 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of roller coaster rankings edit

List of roller coaster rankings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Astros4477 (talk) 04:03, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because... it meets all the criteria and has already gone through a nomination.Astros4477 (talk) 04:03, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tallest and Longest wooden coasters sections are both missing record-holders for the 90's. Rmhermen (talk) 20:11, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are notes in the chart titles. Look here.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 20:29, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The lead says that the list shows the record holders - but apparently it only shows the still-standing record holders? What is the point of the list? The record holders - or the current standings? Rmhermen (talk) 01:16, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well we can't put current per WP:RELTIME.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 02:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We could potentially put these cases in the tables and just have another colour similar to the way coasters under construction are handled. The rank column could then have *** or something. Themeparkgc  Talk  23:52, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I really like that idea. I think the tables should just stay current, with notes about gaps in the years. If you include defunct roller coasters, the lists could get very long in some areas.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 18:09, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The current format of the notes are small and easily missed (as evidenced by Rmhermen's comment). I propose having them listed more clearly similar to the layout found at the featured list, Grade I listed buildings in Bristol, and place them next to the name of the roller coaster where any gap in time begins or ends. In Tallest wooden roller coasters, for example, you could have note #2 next to Mean Streak and note #3 next to Colossos. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:59, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree they are small and easily missed but I don't know if that's the best place for them. I understand what you're saying but it doesn't seem right to have a note about The Rattler, connected to Mean Streak.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 21:15, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm not really following. The note is more about the record than anything else, and it does affect Mean Streak in the way that its record was taken away by The Rattler in March 1992. To me, it makes sense to place it there. However, if that spot really bothers you, it can alternatively be placed next to the date range in the "Record held" column in the same row. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:36, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried playing around with them but everywhere I put them, they don't look good. They might look better if we moved the image or created a gallery like Indopug suggested.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 21:17, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of quick comments
  • I think listing "Park, city, state, country" under Location makes the tables far too wordy. I recommend listing the Park and the Country in separate columns. Further information about location can be obtained by going to the park article.—indopug (talk) 14:13, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Would it be ok if we just had Park and Country in the same column?-- Astros4477 (Talk) 21:42, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I recommended splitting because readers might be interested in sorting by country. On that note, I think you should make the tables sortable, which is possible by deleting that ref column and moving the ref somewhere else (the "Tallest steel roller coasters" header? One of table headers like "Height"?)
If this isn't possible, what you suggested is fine.—indopug (talk) 10:55, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • After taking a long, hard look at the layout, I have to admit that splitting the location into two columns seems like a great idea. We can then move the ref to the table header as proposed and convert each list to a sortable one. Not only will this add clarity, but having the ability to sort by park or country would be very useful in my opinion.--GoneIn60 (talk) 20:30, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is possible to have both: a ref column and sortable tables. You just need to add !class="unsortable"|Ref(s) as the column header. I'd be fine with having location and country columns. If we leave the city and state information though, it will cause the tables to be quite wide forcing wrapping to occur (which I dislike; at the moment for me the first table contains wrapping and doesn't look as neat as the second which doesn't). Themeparkgc  Talk  22:24, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • So I'll remove the city and state and separate the park and country into two columns. I'll do it sometime this weekend.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 20:31, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 18:36, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is having the bolded sentence in the middle of the lead acceptable by our Manual of Style? Does it allow self-referential wording like "This is a list..." I used to work on discographies, and it was prohibited there.—indopug (talk) 14:13, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • "This is a list..." has been added and removed several times since I've worked on this article. Someone will come along and not like it then someone else says it should be there. We should probably decide and keep it that way.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 18:59, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I believe the self-reference is fine. Per WP:SELF, "...while articles may refer to themselves, they should not refer to "Wikipedia" or to the Wikipedia project as a whole (e.g. "this website")". Also this featured list seems to reference itself more than once in the lead. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:22, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • But does it make for good prose? You could easily replace "This list of roller coaster rankings summarizes..." with "Roller coasters are ranked by height..." to avoid the self-ref and improve the language. Also, I feel the bold-text draws the eyes abruptly to the middle of the paragraph, instead of the beginning.—indopug (talk) 15:15, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Further
  • There seems to be a lot of redundant code—what do scope="row" and scope="col" do?
  • The no's under the Rank column should be centred, using align="center".
    • I don't think so... They used to be centered but they were asked to be removed.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 16:14, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't think the Poll rankings section is appropriate for this article. The rest of it is based on objective stuff—heights, angles—but here we have subjective opinion polls. Further, the fact that you only list the latest ranking seems to be WP:RECENTISM.
    • I don't think that applies because it's not changed on a daily, weekly or even monthly basis.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 16:17, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the tables continue to wrap even after removing state & city, I suggest moving the pics from the right and putting in galleries of four/five in the middle of page, in between successive tables.

Advice: if you are going to be moving lots of text around repetitively, I recommend using find-and-replace to get it done in a jiffy. For eg: this edit took me a couple of seconds as I did a replace-all for "Ref(s)" with "Ref".—indopug (talk) 15:15, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 22:04, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
  • The Record held columns should be sorting by date, not by the first letter of the month as they are now.
 Done – Thanks for the feedback. The column now sorts based on start date of each record. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:30, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Longest wooden roller coaster drops: Number 10 isn't sorting properly. There are sort templates that fix such numbering issues. This is also an issue for Fastest wooden roller coasters and Tallest vertical loops.
 Done --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:30, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fastest steel roller coasters: Number 5's country is included with the park name, throwing the whole table off.
 Done --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:30, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Steepest steel roller coasters: Photo here could use alt text.
  • All caps in ref 48 need fixing.
  • Ref 47 needs a publisher. And what makes this a reliable source? It looks like somebody's personal website.
  • Publisher of refs 73–80 (Amusement Today) should be italicized as a printed publication. Giants2008 (Talk) 15:23, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]



CommentsThere is a lot of great information in this list. However, I went through table by table and found that the majority would not allow me to sort by column as suggested by the up/down arrows. Sometimes the reference numbers in the far left column would move.

  • Tallest steel roller coasters – Does not work.
  • Longest steel roller coaster drops – Does not work.
  • Tallest wooden roller coasters – Does not work.
  • Longest wooden roller coaster drops – Does not work.
  • Fastest steel roller coasters – Does not work.
  • Fastest wooden roller coasters – Does not work.
  • Longest steel roller coasters – Does not work.
  • Longest wooden roller coasters – Does not work.
  • Steepest steel roller coasters – Works (but the Maximum vertical angle column is not sorting properly (probably requires a hidden key to sort).
 Done --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:19, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Steepest wooden roller coasters – Works.
  • Tallest roller coasters inversions – Works.
  • Tallest vertical loops – Works.
  • Most inversions on a steel roller coaster – Does not work.
  • Most inversions on a wooden roller coaster – Works.
  • Top 10 steel roller coasters of 2012 – Does not work.
  • Top 10 wooden roller coasters of 2012 – Does not work.
  • Best Steel Roller Coaster Poll 2010 – Does not work.
  • Best Wooden Roller Coaster Poll 2012 - Does not work.

I haven't seen comments about most of the tables not sorting, so I wonder if it's something recent (or a problem with my browser)... Thanks - Godot13 (talk) 01:38, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is definitely something recent, as I know for a fact it was working fine in this revision. However, even in that revision I'm having trouble now, which is really strange to me. In testing, I can say that removing the rowspan setting in either the rank or reference columns resolves the issue. Apparently, since this issue started, you can't have more than one rowspan parameter nested in a sortable table (and actually, MOS:TABLES says you shouldn't use rowspan at all). --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:36, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well is there any solution? Could we take out the sortability?-- Astros4477 (Talk) 20:41, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The only three options are to remove sorting (obviously), remove the rowspan parameter from all entries in the Rank column, or remove the rowspan parameter from all entries in the Ref column. Personally, I'd go the third option, but it doesn't really matter much to me. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:32, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Another possible option is using a Hidden Key --Godot13 (talk) 23:45, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Probably the main source for that issue is the fact that you use rowspan in the Ref columns. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 13:22, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll remove the rowspan in the refs column if everyone agrees that's the best option.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 04:51, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A side-by-side table format where the ref column is actually it's own table may be the ultimate workaround, but so far I haven't been able to get it to look right (though I know it's possible). For now, taking out rowspan in the Ref column gets my vote. --GoneIn60 (talk) 10:24, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did it for the first table. Does that solve the problem? I don't want to do it to them all unless I know that's the solution.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 16:35, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think I have it fixed.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 02:29, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorting issues appear resolved. --Godot13 (talk) 00:09, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So can you change it to support? :)-- Astros4477 (Talk) 01:03, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update: First off, apologies for the long delay in revisiting. I'm glad that the list has improved since FLC. That said, I'm afraid I can't support because of the presence of the Poll rankings section. There are two reasons for my opposition to the section:

1. Why confuse an otherwise-objective article with a subjective section? (to provide an analogy—notice how a music-artist's discography and awards articles are separate; it's because their scopes are entirely different)
  • Although I disagree because the list is about roller coaster rankings and those are rankings, I have removed it.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 18:06, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is mixing objective and subjective material discouraged? The acceptable format for media and technology, for example, uses a Reception section for subjective content in an otherwise objective article. Are lists treated differently? --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:36, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nearly ever rollercoaster in this list has its own article; there, as you say, you would deal with the subject comprehensively—include both subjective objective info. On the other hand, a list of items has to have a defined scope (see WP:FL? 3a), and it's crucial that we don't confuse that scope.
  • Besides having the opinion polls raises a number of questions: why only mention these particular polls? Were they conducted scientifically? Do the polls reflect a worldwide view or a US-only one? When the rest of the article is about "all-time" rankings (for eg, tallest-ever wooden rollercoaster), is it consistent for the opinion polls to be only from the latest year?—indopug (talk) 13:04, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2. Why do only the latest year's ranking get mentioned? (why is one from 2010?)—indopug (talk) 12:49, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That particular poll was on a hiatus for two years. He conducted the poll again last month for the first time so the results should be out within a few weeks.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 18:06, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support All my concerns have been addressed.—indopug (talk) 13:04, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support My concerns have been addressed.--Godot13 (talk) 15:07, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:20, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments (sorry for the delay)
  • " took thrill-seeking riders " reads a little like a brochure, not particularly encyclopedic.
  • "inversions", what are these? Is there a decent link you could use for it?
  • Are you sure the XL–220 needs an en-dash instead of a hyphen (per the article).
  • "it ushered in" bit journalistic again, would try to stick to encyclopedic tone.
  • "418 ft or 127 m" etc. Seems a little odd to me, most other lists would have "418 ft (127 m)", just as you do in the lead.
    • I'm not entirely sure why this was done. I'll leave a note on the users page that added that format.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 18:29, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I altered the display of the convert formula because that is what I had seen in other tables (not necessarily those in FLs). In tables I personally think the "or" display looks better. In saying that I don't really mind if it is removed. Themeparkgc  Talk  23:45, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the N/A for records should sort below the "lowest" in each case, because sorting by the most recent, you have loads of N/As and then the actual most recent record holder.
  • I don't think you need a column for refs when most tables have a single reference used on every line, you could have something simple like "Source: ..." after each table to avoid all those repeated refs.
  • "149.1 mph or 240.0" while all other speeds are given the nearest whole number... be consistent.
  • "Inside Top Hat" why the over-capitalisation? Similarly "Vertical Loop"? And "Cobra Loop"?
  • "Wooden roller coasters" the Record column is blank, shouldn't it be N/A?
  • "2000 – 2006" -> "2000–06" per WP:DASH and WP:YEAR. In fact, it should probably be "from 2000 to 2006".
  • I'm not entirely sure Category:Lists of amusement parks is correct, since this is list of rides, not parks.

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:01, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded to and addressed all comments.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 19:28, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Can this list be moved to ...records instead of rankings? Nergaal (talk) 19:43, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure can, probably a good idea too. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:44, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have performed the move; I agree.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 19:53, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd actually like to get more of a consensus before it is moved again.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 14:31, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since we are more likely to make references to the phrase "world record" as opposed to "world ranking" in the articles, I do not oppose the change. However, at the same time, it seems like a wash. Both terms seem to fit well. In addition, the current prose in the lead section already uses a form of ranking and should probably be modified if the page is moved. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:53, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I personally would like to see it stay as is because it's not about all the records. It kinda seems to be an unnecessary change.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 18:29, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note this nomination appears to have stalled. Suggest the nominator contacts relevant projects or editors who may be interested in reviewing this for FLC, or else we should archive the nomination. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:05, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How has it stalled? It's received reviews from 5 users.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 21:32, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It needs support, not just reviews. Otherwise it'll be archived as having no consensus to promote. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:26, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why didn't you or Giants give it a support? I resolved your comments so what else is there? I'd hate to nominate this a third time, especially when not one user has opposed it in both nominations.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 13:10, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Because either of us may have to close the nomination and it's not great for conflicts of interest. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:07, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note – I'll be having a look at this FLC within the next day. —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:47, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support – other than a minor fix I made, everything looks good to go. Meets FLC criteria. —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:44, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_roller_coaster_rankings/archive2&oldid=1136093787"