Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of World Heritage Sites in Croatia/archive1

< 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 Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 23:33, 19 November 2017 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of World Heritage Sites in Croatia edit

List of World Heritage Sites in Croatia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Tone 16:53, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Following the successful nomination of List of World Heritage Sites in Slovenia, I am nominating the Croatian list for featured list as well. The criteria as follows:

  • 1 and 2 should be fine. Some language tweaks may be required but I expect them to be pointed out during the nomination.
  • 3 - it is complete and cannot be presented as a part of another article, at least not in this shape.
  • 4 - tables work and are sortable.
  • 5 - all images are on Commons, I could not find anything useful for two of the tentative sites so I am leaving those blank.
  • 6 - it is stable. Changes are expected when status of nominations change or more sites are added but that is about it.
Tone 16:53, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the list looks great. Not a thorough review yet, but I do want to comment that I strongly recommend consistency. I am disappointed by the variation that already exists in FLs like List of World Heritage Sites in Spain, List of World Heritage Sites in Africa, and List of World Heritage Sites in Madagascar: This list is closer to the latter table format, which is most common and I prefer. For one, other country lists do not have a 'Shared with' column. Because a minority of sites are shared, that info is better included in the description - it already is for the graveyards and Venetian works, so it's redundant! References also do not have to be a separate column - putting it at the end of the description, even if also sourcing the Data column, is acceptable and preferred because it reduces space used and clutter. Reywas92Talk 01:19, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see your point. Initially, the Shared with column was introduced to Slovenia's list (which has several shared sites) after a FL discussion, the details were first listed as "comments". I am fine with following the example of Spain and merging them to the description column, also the references, if a consensus arises (I will wait for more comments before the changes). Community column is probably rather country-specific, while I am not a big fan of the Period column, which may sometimes be hard to asses and can thus be confusing - for some building that has been used for a long time and had modifications, for example. And non-applicable for natural sites. Africa's list has coordinates but those may be tricky for large sites or for sites that have several different locations, so I'd leave those out as well. The rest, I believe, is more or less consistent. Spain's list does not have a table for tentative sites, but there are many many tentative sites there ;) --Tone 06:08, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, I was just giving those as examples of the unfortunate lack of consistency in prior articles, not that they should be followed in particular - that's correct on Community, though some customization is fine. I don't like the Period column either! There are already coordinates built into the clickable map, it'd be smart to use those in the location column; size and sites are not major issues honestly, just so they're available. It's the unnecessary Shared column I'm concerned about at all though. Reywas92Talk 06:25, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • I know, I am already looking forward whether it is possible to reasonably make all those articles more unified ;) On the other thought, in future, there will be more and more shared sites, as this is something UNESCO is aiming for instead of "a single church"-type sites (read somewhere, don't ask me for the source). But for the time being, I am fine with merging the columns. --Tone 16:42, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Reywas92Talk 23:28, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:36, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • The lead feels a little lightweight, and that large image renders the first table too narrow, consider using {{clear}} to ensure the table can occupy the width of the page.
  • I really dislike the bold, italic titles, you could eliminate it with plainrowheaders.
  • I would split the UNESCO data so at the least it can be sorted by what year each site was added. Especially as right now, if you sort the table by one of the headings, you can never go back to the way it was listed initially.
  • " (32 m high inside) " convert to Imperial.
  • "1,000 kilometres" ditto.
  • "Zadar - Episcopal complex" en-dash, not hyphen.
  • "Varaždin - Historic Nucleus..." & "Burg - Castle..." same.
  • "range of Karst landforms." no need for capital K.
  • En dashes needed in reference titles instead of spaced hyphens.

The Rambling Man (talk) 12:44, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'll go through the comments some time in near future. As for splitting the UNESCO data, this would somehow deviate from the standards set in other FLs of this type - I am fine with that but ideally that would introduce changes to other articles as well for the sake of consistency. What do you think? --Tone 18:53, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well at the very least consider the idea that you can't ever restore the list to the original sorting, i.e. chronological, with the current format. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:27, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would have the default sort just alphabetically; date inscribed isn't necessarily relevant to the reader. The reference numbers are assigned chronologically, so splitting that from the year shouldn't really make a difference. Reywas92Talk 21:25, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, because the year doesn't come first. Unless the sort is forced using a template, right now there's no way of listing them in chronological order. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:08, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tone any action on this? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:58, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Planning to work on it this weekend! I see Reywas92 already made some changes to the table, I think I like it. --Tone 09:19, 18 October 2017 (UTC)ues fixed (apart from converting "more than 1000 km" to miles which does not really make sense using a template - shall I convert manually?). Reywas92 already fixed the references and shared with columns. Regarding the sorting issue, the reference number is indeed chronological but there are problems with sorting them[reply]
Alright, I'm through. Iss. Any idea how to get around that? --Tone 16:47, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Rambling Man As a side note, I condensed the table in Slovenia's list, following the same pattern. Still no definite solution regarding the sorting ... --Tone 14:45, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pehaps you need a separate column for year then. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:55, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done, in both cases I call it "Year listed". Prose amended as well. --Tone 15:08, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. The only thing that stands out now is that the col widths for each similar column are different widths from table to table which is aesthetically displeasing. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:15, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Fixed that as well. Once we're done with this nomination, I'll implement the same style to Slovenia and Serbia lists as well. --Tone 15:25, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just one more thing, because you have that large map image and force a {{clear}} so the TOC appears below it, and because the lead is (probably too) short, you have far too much whitespace going on up in there. My advice? Make the map 20% small, make the lead 30% longer and hey presto. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:28, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voila! --Tone 16:44, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the {{clear}}, it looks a lot better for me without the whitespace that remained after your tweaks, what do you think? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:21, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. --Tone 16:30, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support nice doing work with you, I think this is now a reasonably refined template on which you can base the other lists you've mentioned before. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:36, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from BeatlesLedTV
  • Center the year columns.
  • Any reason in the descriptions some of the references have a space in between periods while others are next to periods? I say put them all next to periods.
  • Put en dashes in image spaces that don't have images & make sure they're centered.

That's all I got. Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 19:28, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed! Those spaces were excessive. I thought there is a command to center columns but it seems it has to be done for each field manually. --Tone 22:03, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – Yeah it sucks that it has to be manually but it is the way it is. Anyways, I got no other comments or concerns. Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 23:06, 16 November 2017 (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_World_Heritage_Sites_in_Croatia/archive1&oldid=1076194642"