Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/November 2024

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 archived by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 3 November 2024 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Nominator(s): ―Howard • 🌽³³ 17:40, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that you have no identity unless you have a flag.

— Alfred Znamierowski

I am nominating this for featured list because I have spent a lot of time making it and adding all the sources which I believe are reliable in this case. I have attempted to include all relevant information on every flag of every sovereign state of the world, including an image, a description, a date, a designer, and an aspect ratio. I have received much positive feedback (and even a barnstar) for this endeavor, so I feel confident in sending this as my first featured list nomination. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 17:40, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Due to personal circumstances, I am of the belief that I will no longer be able to edit the list substantially enough, in the present moment and the near future, such that it fulfills the criteria necessary for its promotion to FL status. I may revisit this list at some other point in time, but I am unconfident that such edits will be made within the timeframe of the present review. I may pepper the article with minor edits from this moment onwards, but remain cognizant of the fact that I leave the task of ensuring the fulfillment of the FL criteria to some other editor. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 22:48, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The flag of Tonga is missing from the list. 69.124.56.171 (talk) 04:26, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed this now. Thanks for notifying me. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 10:19, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The article has almost 900 citations and over 218kb of content. With that in mind, the lead is far too short: I would expect three paragraphs. As it stands, the prose is still a little clunky, but I think that would improve with increased detail.
  • I'm not exactly sure what is supposed to be put in the lead that isn't already included in the Background and definitions (B&D) section. Would you prefer if I just removed the section header so that "Background and definitions" forms a part of the lead?
    • No, that would be too excessive. See WP:SALLEAD: the lead should summarise the contents of the B&D section and the list. Three is actually excessive, two would do, but one is definitely on the short side.
• "In vexillology, Polish vexillologist Alfred Znamierowski defines" little repetitive, why is the definition specific to vexillology?

• I've removed the Znamierowski definition. It should have been cut out a while ago.

• " governments have used them to promote and create bonds within the country, motivate patriotism" what non-patriotic bonds have been promoted/created?
• See MOS:ANDOR

• Switched to just "and". I think it means the same thing in this case.

• Please provide specific page numbers for the relevant sentences in the sources you cite, as readers should not have to hunt through forty-page articles for verification; considering the current citation format, {{rp}} would probably be best.

• I'm not sure which sources you are talking about here. Could you give an example or two?
  • Cerulo 1993, Tóth 2022, Becker et al. 2017

• Given the emphasis in "Background and definitions" on flags symbolising and representing various things, I am surprised that the descriptions seem to actively steer away from describing them, and instead focus (very robotically) on the colour/layout arrangements. Can you explain this choice?
  • I've considered adding a "symbolism" column previously. But it might not be a good idea considering that many flags have complicated or even disputed symbolisms which would be better explained in its respective article (we only have limited space in the columns). Layout descriptions are objective and can be explained (relatively) straightforwardly. It isn't necessarily impossible, but we can't have both a layout description and a symbolic description without making the list very bloated. Since you do feel surprised by B&D not mentioning general layouts of flags, should I include a passage relating to this?
    • I think that would be a good idea. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:56, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, great work. Ping me when you've replied to/dealt with the above. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:14, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29:

(This is my first FLC nomination I'm not exactly sure how the process works but I'll try my best to reply to all your comments)

Thank you for the feedback, I hope to receive more in the future. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 12:37, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize you would nominate this so quickly but it's great work! The references column is way too big, it's 8 citations wide! I'd suggest merging these into the description column, but there are also way too many references in general. Like you could just say the books in the bibliography are general references without 200 footnotes to each one. Is there anything specifically taken from these books that aren't already in another reference anyway? I mean, there are a lot of flag books and sites out there so this feels like Wikipedia:Citation overkill especially since they aren't available online through the GBooks link. Reywas92^Talk 14:02, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wait you can just do that on wikipedia? Just add a general bibliography instead of citing the books every time? ―Howard • 🌽³³ 17:02, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Citing_sources#General_references - although that mentions "underdeveloped articles", I think it's different for lists, particularly here when there are other citations that maintain "text–source integrity". I wrote these FLs a long time ago but I used them in United_States_Secretary_of_Transportation#References and List_of_governors_of_Indiana#References. You can also put a broadly used citation in the column header like in List of counties in Washington, or just list related books in a bibliography without calling them references. I know doing these wouldn't include the specific page numbers, but it appears a lot cleaner and it's not like it would be hard to find the relevant verification if you had the book in hand with a TOC or index. Reywas92^Talk 18:23, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, I have cited at least two books (Znamierowski encyclopedia and DK guide) and two websites (CIA World Factbook and Whitney Smith's flag articles on Britannica) for every entry on the UN countries list (excluding citing the World Factbook for State of Palestine). How should I go about mentioning these citations broadly? Should I include the link to the list of flag articles that Whitney Smith wrote for EB and the CIA's flag profile directory? ―Howard • 🌽³³ 19:13, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I am understanding this correctly, here is what the "general" citation would look like.

Refs.^[1]

@Howardcorn33: I've just noticed your comment above about possibly not having time for this nomination. I understand you haven't received reviews in a while, but are you still interested in pursuing this? It's fine if so, I was just going to ping the two people above for an official support if you are still interested. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:56, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not interested in pursuing it further at the present moment. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 17:33, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving. --PresN 22:05, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

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

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 archived by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 3 November 2024 (UTC) [2].[reply]

Nominator(s): Dajasj (talk) 06:53, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it is a very simple table, yet enables users to quickly find information. Do you want to see who were the (in)formateurs and scouts for a given formation, that's easy to spot right away. Do you want to know how many times Herman Tjeenk Willink has been (in)formateur, it is easy to sort. The longest serving informateur, also easy to sort. The lead gives a quick overview of what the roles are, and some facts that are relevant to the table. The table has references to easily accessible online resources as well as more detailed offline sources (where available). It is an essential part of my project to - in the long term - have decent articles about all Dutch cabinet formations, and I believe this specific part of my project is a suitable featured list candidate. Dajasj (talk) 06:53, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed all comments (except for the suggestion to merge, which I believe is not desirable). If anyone has other comments, please let me know. (Otherwise I'll just accept it won't be promoted to FL) Dajasj (talk) 12:34, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Per MOS:CHRONO, the list should be in chronological order, not backwards -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:09, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed! Dajasj (talk) 15:42, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Another drive-by: the name most assuredly does not meet our naming guidelines. I don't see "(in)formateurs" as a literal term in my searches. This should likely be List of Dutch formateurs and scouts, with a note that "scout" has become the new term for "informateur" after 2012. I am not an expert on this topic, so happy to consider other naming, but as it stands this naming convention is not the WP:COMMONNAME. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:09, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi @Gonzo fan2007, thanks for the reply. The informateur does still exist (I have clarified it in the lead), so it would be List of Dutch formateurs, informateurs and scouts. Would that be desirable? Then I'll move it :) Dajasj (talk) 16:34, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, that would be preferable. Thanks. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:35, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Fixed! Dajasj (talk) 16:43, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm wondering if these page can be merged with List of Dutch cabinet formations. These are closely related topics with some overlap. Reywas92^Talk 16:48, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  In theory, yes, they are closely related indeed. However, if would want to avoid losing relevant information, you would have to add five columns to List of Dutch cabinet formations. Personally, I think that would be too wide and be too chaotic, while most reader's questions will be answered by either one of the two lists. I would love to hear your thoughts. Dajasj (talk) 16:56, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You would get something like this: User:Dajasj/sandbox/Informateurs. But obviously way longer. Dajasj (talk) 18:40, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I actually think that looks really good. It could be somewhat narrower if the start and end dates are in one column and the reference within another as well. Reywas92^Talk 01:48, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Hmm. It is still relatively easy to compare information about informateurs, but really hard to compare information about formations. Sorting on length of formations becomes really chaotic imo, and for longer formations, only one fits on my (mobile) screen, so its not easy to see in a glance the top 5 longest formations. Dajasj (talk) 05:45, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment

After reading the lead I'm still very confused as to what these three role actually do. The lead needs to be much more clearly written for this to pass. Mattximus (talk) 16:36, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Mattximus for the feedback. I realise I was too focused on historical background, without including information for those not familiar with the topic. I have rewritten the lead. If you have the time, I would love to hear if this is clear now and if not, what is not clear. Thanks in advance! Dajasj (talk) 06:40, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly better, but the order is all mixed up after the first sentence. The list ends with scouts but the first sentences is scouts? Then goes back in time, then forwards in time? Still quite confusing, but improving. Mattximus (talk) 20:58, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think I fixed this. I also moved some information to a separate section. It still gives background, but now makes clear that these paragraphs have another chronological order. Dajasj (talk) 08:45, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination has been open for over two months without any supports, so I am going to unfortunately close it. Feel free to renominate, but consider requesting reviews from relevant editors or projects. --PresN 22:05, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

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