Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of World Heritage Sites in Croatia/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 Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 23:33, 19 November 2017 (UTC).

List of World Heritage Sites in Croatia

 * Nominator(s): Tone 16:53, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

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: Tone 16:53, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * 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.


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Support Reywas92Talk 23:28, 16 November 2017 (UTC)


 * 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)

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


 * 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)

Giants2008 ( Talk ) 22:06, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.