Template:Did you know nominations/Flags of country subdivisions (Oceania)


 * The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as |this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by BencherliteTalk 01:19, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Flags of country subdivisions (Oceania)

 * ... that in French Polynesia, the right to fly an island's flag alongside the French flag was granted in 1985?


 * Comment: Created on July 24, but continuously expanded through today (August 3).
 * Comment: Created on July 24, but continuously expanded through today (August 3).

Created by NewYorkActuary (talk). Self-nominated at 23:20, 3 August 2016 (UTC).


 * Symbol delete vote.svg Not sure what is being nominated for DYK here. The link is to a section in an article which has been around a lot longer then 24 July. The article is just a list of images of flags with no real prose content. Not eligible for DYK - should a different article be linked? Bcp67 (talk) 21:11, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Bcp67 My apologies for the error.  I meant to link to the recently spun-out article (the link in the hook has now been corrected).  It, too, is a gallery-type article, but has more prose in it than did the original article.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:31, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks NewYorkActuary - I thought there had to be a mistake as the original linked article was so obviously ineligble but I couldn't work out what it should be! Have struck through my first comment now. Bcp67 (talk) 04:21, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg: New, long enough, but does not cite inline sources. I see that the article is sourced to the CIA World Factbook but it would be beneficial to include a direct link to each relevant page of the factbook so readers can easily access the primary source. The hook is nice and sourced. Axem Titanium (talk) 00:31, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Axem Titanium Thanks for taking a look at this.  Regarding sourcing, every entry contains a link to the article for the country in question, as well as any spin-out articles that address the administrative subdivisions of the country.  Although I am aware that one cannot use Wikipedia as a source, I assume that one can rely on the sourcing that exists in any "main articles" that are being cited.  But when I checked those articles today, I found (to my chagrin) that a goodly number of them do not source the relevant information.  And so I agree that something more is needed here.  But I'm not sure that 31 references, each going to a separate sub-page of the same web site, is the best way to go.  Instead, I've modified the introduction's mention of the Factbook so as to direct the reader to the article's External Links section.  There, I've added three links.  Two of them go to the Factbook's web site -- one of the targets has a drop-down box that brings the reader just one click away from the country of interest; the other link goes to a single listing of the administrative subdivisions of every country in the world (thus requiring only that the reader scroll down to the country of interest).  The third link is to the ISO site, which also brings the reader one search-box away from the country of interest.  I hope you find this an acceptable alternative.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:35, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, I'm not certain this would pass muster in a more rigorous review process than DYK. Even if it's 31 references to the same website, it's to the readers' benefit to have very quick access to the relevant webpage. I'm going to Symbol voting keep.svg with the hope that you get around to individual citations eventually. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:01, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Symbol possible vote.svg There are two major issues with this nomination. The first is that the bold link does not go to the article itself, but rather to a subsection of it. That's not allowed at DYK; it has to be the main article. And the other is that the individual sections are not referenced. You can always appeal this on the DYK talk page, but I've never seen a list article that had no individual source citations except for in only one paragraph in the article body, and that seems to run afoul of WP:DYKSG: The article in general should use inline, cited sources. A rule of thumb is one inline citation per paragraph, excluding the intro, plot summaries, and paragraphs which summarize other cited content. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:46, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking a look at this. Regarding the linking to a section, I have no strong feelings about making it a link to the article itself.  But I note that most of the article has nothing to do with French Polynesia, so readers looking to learn more about the hook will find themselves having to search for the appropriate section if they are linked to the main article.  But I'll be happy to change the link if necessary.
 * The need for in-line citations is more troublesome. Since my last posting, I've added two more external links to the article, with the new ones going to on-line flag sites.  One of these links is to a listing of the site's entries for all countries in the world, meaning that verification is achieved simply by scrolling down to the country of interest and then clicking on a link.  Thus, verification is easily achieved for both the identification of country subdivisions (via the links that had been added earlier) and the flags themselves (via the more recently-added links).  I am aware that the unique history of Did You Know has led to citation rules that are different than the ones found in other parts of Wikipedia.  But it appears that these rules were not crafted with this type of article in mind.  I note that it would be possible to bring two of the external links (the single-page listing of subdivisions and the all-countries listing of flag entries) into the article as named references.  Then, each paragraph could be linked to one or the other of these two named references (or both).  Doing so would bring the article into formal compliance with the DYK citation rules.  But it would also introduce the unsightly use of two references that are each being cited dozens of times.  And it would do so without adding anything to the ease with which the information can be verified.
 * The information in the article is well-sourced, and that sourcing is achieved by links to sites that are themselves designed to facilitate the easy location of material. I see nothing to be gained by peppering the article with dozens of footnote markers that point to two multiply-used named references.  Perhaps this is a rare situation for which formal compliance with the rules does not improve the article.
 * Thanks again for looking at this. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:52, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The CIA World Factbook has distinct urls for each of the listed countries like and  so there's no need to cite the same url dozens of times. The same is true for the ISO Online Browsing Platform. Providing in-line direct links to citations is a convenience on the one hand, and critical for accessibility to readers with less computer literacy. Axem Titanium (talk) 23:23, 2 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Symbol delete vote.svg This has been sitting for two months without any action. It's time to close it. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:35, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * No further response. Closing as rejected. BencherliteTalk 01:19, 11 November 2016 (UTC)