Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Rail transport in Walt Disney Parks and Resorts/archive1


 * 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 PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:32, 12 June 2017 (UTC).

Rail transport in Walt Disney Parks and Resorts

 * Nominator(s): Jackdude101 (talk) 20:22, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because...it summarizes all of the rail transport installations currently and previously located in properties run or licensed by Walt Disney Parks and Resorts (the largest theme park chain in the world by annual attendance) and every data item on the list is referenced. Jackdude101 (talk) 20:22, 20 February 2017 (UTC)


 * The sources look good, but I'm not a featured-nominations expert so someone would be better looking these over. However, I have two main issues:
 * Do you really need the lead image to be such a wide panoramic view? It might be better at the bottom of a section, like the Rail transport in Walt Disney Parks and Resorts section. You should add a lead image that doesn't need to be as wide. Like File:WDW MonorailRed ApproachingStation.jpg (not recommended) or File:Monorail Coral.jpg (slightly more recommended)
 * Also, the routemaps in the bottom of each section take up a whole lot of server space. It's fine to include routemaps—see Select Bus Service for an example of routemap implementation. But there are about 20 of them in this article. Putting the maps in the bottom of the section is better than putting them in the individual tables, but it's just that there are a lot of maps which, with the exception of Disneyland Resort Line, are located in the respective articles as well. (Also, Disneyland Resort Line and Disneyland Resort Line RDT look similar. I did see the TFD nomination, but I think it would be best to have one template that you can toggle based on the parameter.)
 * Overall though, everything else looks fine to me so far. Again, I'll have to take a look. epicgenius (talk) 19:22, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with changing the lead image if you think that's going to be a deal breaker. In a perfect world, I would choose an image that has more than one Disney rail line in the same shot (the Disneyland Railroad and the Disneyland Monorail System criss-cross each other near Tomorrowland Station and from there you can take a picture of both at once, for example), but since no such image is available on the Wikimedia Commons, I'll just change it to another WDW Monorail image for now. As far as the route maps go, there are sixteen total and according to my edit from last year when I added them all at once, they each take up ~55 bytes of memory in the article (i.e.: not that much). The main reason why I included them in the article is so you can compare and contrast them all side-by-side without having to click back-and-forth between the individual articles. I also went out of my way to make all of the route diagrams uniform in size and style (I am the original author for all of them except for the WDW Monorail and the Disneyland Resort Line) specifically so that they would display nicely in this article. Notice for instance how all of them are exactly twelve pictograms high (that's not an accident).  Jackdude 101  ( Talk ) 5:17, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. The BS-maps can be easily modified to have one more blank line (just add a back-slash  on its own line). Also, you can use Multiple image to add multiple images in the lead if you want to have both the monorail and railroad in the lead.In regards to "server space," I'm not talking about how many bytes are in the string   if you actually add it to a page; I'm talking about the post-expand include size after all the templates are loaded. For example, the string   is 30 bytes, but it may actually use up more CPU. Wikipedia has a restriction that when there are too many templates transcluded on a certain page, it will display a certain number of templates as normal until the limit is reached, then the remaining templates are displayed like wikilinks, like   instead of the actual template. That's what I'm concerned about—the fact that the routemaps may actually go over the template limit. This is not a major issue, but just something to keep in mind. epicgenius (talk) 14:17, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I actually discovered the route map template limit the hard way when I first added them. Originally, all of the Disney route diagrams were written using the old  template and when all of them were included in the article, not all of them would display. So, I converted them all to the new   template and now all of them display together correctly. The   template appears to have resolved several of the techincal problems that the old   template had.  Jackdude 101  ( Talk ) 11:00, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

this nomination has been stalled for six weeks now, have you pinged a few people/projects to see if anyone would be prepared to review the list? If nothing forthcoming soon, we'll need to archive the nomination as unsuccessful at this time. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:16, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I messaged several people and task forces just now. My apologies. I am not very familiar with the nomination process for featured list status and thought that it would be similar to the good article status process, where you simply have to wait a few months for someone to come by and review it.  Jackdude 101  ( Talk ) 22:59, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It should be like that, but we tend allow nominations to persist for a few weeks without comments before archiving them for lack of interest. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:53, 12 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Based on my comments above, I support the Featured List distinction. I'm the only !voter here, so not sure if this means much. epicgenius (talk) 12:55, 13 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I made significant changes to the lead section since we last spoke (I changed the marking on the lead section issue above from partly done to done). When you have a moment, please review and indicate whether you support or oppose FL status for this article.  Jackdude 101  ( Talk ) 13:40, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It's much better now, but as I'm an FLC delegate and as there looks to be sufficient interest here, I'll recuse from voting right now so that I'm in a better position to close the nomination as appropriate in due course. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:55, 5 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I was invited to participate in this discussion yesterday. On my first glance, I like what I see, but I have not yet read through the prose in the article.  I hope to take a closer look tonight.  Slambo (Speak)  11:20, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I support the nomination, especially because this is not a blunt list in a table but an interesting article with photographs and maps, which is very concise. To improve it further, I put forward two comments: The statement "the most-visited theme park on Earth" in the first caption of a figure could be seen by critics as a bit promotional. It does not add anything to the subject discussed unless it implies that the theme parks have such large car parks that the visitors need to be transported by railways. In the first line of the paragraphs on Disneyland Resort and Walt Disney World I would add their locations such as In Anaheim, California. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 07:53, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I support the nomination, The map templates help make the list more eye-catching to the viewer. Cards84664 (talk) 00:16, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Alright, it stalled out for a while there, but all done now. The latest support is a little lacking as there's no indication that a real review was done, but I've read through it myself anyways and I'm good with it. Source review passed, promoting. -- Pres N  02:01, 11 June 2017 (UTC)


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