Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/September 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) 12:25, 17 September 2024 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Nominator(s): The Kip ^(contribs) 08:58, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another VGK FL candidacy, this one being inspired by List of Detroit Red Wings general managers. Dramatically expanded the lead's prose and added a key - the existing table seemed good to go. Won't be nominating any more until this and the players one are complete, per the consensus. The Kip ^(contribs) 08:58, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Edmonton Oilers,[9][10], with - There's an extra comma there.
• Is note b) really needed? I mean, that's not the case with any of the general managers on this list, so I think we could do without it.
• All in all, I don't think the key is needed at all. If we agree on note b) not being needed, you could do with {{abbr}} for No. = Number and Ref(s) = References, given that the – is not used either.

That's what I saw. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 09:35, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Alavense I've opted to hide the key for now - by default, it'll be used in the future, but I see the idea that it's redundant for now. Added the templates as well. The Kip ^(contribs) 19:46, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the extra comma myself. Support. Alavense (talk) 07:08, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "Las Vegas, Nevada" is linked in the lead but piped as Las Vegas. WP:NOTBROKEN says you should simply use the "Las Vegas, Nevada" redirect.
• Pacific Division is linked twice in the lead
• "Ultimately, however, McCrimmon led the Golden Knights" both Ultimately and however seems redundant
• Not doing a full source review but just noting that citations appear inconsistant in linking to publishers.

All I saw Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 15:47, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@OlifanofmrTennant

• Split the LV link into Las Vegas and Nevada.
• Fixed the middle two
• Fixed the publisher/work links such that they're only wikilinked their first appearance in the article.

The Kip ^(contribs) 19:49, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first to are good, the third is the problem. They have to be linked every time or never. Also just spotted that in the table "Ref(s)" should just be "Ref." as there is only one reference per row. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 01:22, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha, I'll go ahead and link all that can be linked. The Kip ^(contribs) 07:23, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 14:57, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned with the length of this list, as it only has two entries. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:44, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I unfortunately can't really fix that - I don't have the connections to get McCrimmon fired 😂

In all seriousness, though - is there a minimum required length/number of entries? The Kip ^(contribs) 19:53, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the list should be fine, the list will presumably keep growing in length Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 01:19, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also concerned with the length. If it's just two entries, why make it a list article, and not just a regular article? I don't think a list with this few entries has ever been promoted before. Mattximus (talk) 15:23, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mattximus Two points on this:

• The list is presumed to continually grow in the future; barring something unexpected (i.e. a sudden folding of the team or league), there will be more GMs. It’s not going to be stable at two forever.
• I feel like a minimum length penalizes organizational stability to a degree - for instance, by that line it’d be difficult to turn the Nashville Predators’ GM list into a FL given that David Poile was in charge for 20+ years and they’ve only had two GMs as a result, while it’d be easier to do so for the Columbus Blue Jackets, who’ve been organizationally unstable and as such have had six permanent/interim GMs in roughly the same span.

The Kip ^(contribs) 17:52, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I see your points, but ultimately there's typically a minimum length needed to not violate Wikipedia:Featured list criteria criterion 3c - it's not set in stone, but it's usually 8 to 10. A list of 2 items is just too short- at that length, it could easily fit (and would fit better) at Vegas Golden Knights. It's not that it penalizes stability, it's that we don't prioritize cross-team consistency in article/list metastructure over meeting 3c in terms of something being a content fork at it's current size. Decades from now it might have enough content to justify its own list, but today it just doesn't. --PresN 11:46, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @PresN Am I allowed to second you? If so, I do. XR228 (talk) 15:54, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @PresN I suppose my main concern at this point is impacting the eventual good topic I plan to do on VGK - unless I'm able to leave this list out (am I?), it effectively makes said GT impossible for another few decades.

Otherwise, unless there's something else I can do with this list (and the head coaches list), it may be time to withdraw this nom. The Kip ^(contribs) 21:43, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Turns out that's not a concern, as noted at Wikipedia:Featured and good topic criteria § 3c. If this won't pass review at this point, I think's it's probably good to close. The Kip ^(contribs) 22:23, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, this kind of situation is part of why that rule exists. I do think that this list should be merged into the team article, but I'm not going to wade into non-FLC content concerns. --PresN 01:02, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to point out that now that that edit has been made about Las Vegas and Nevada, it doesn't comply with MOS:GEOLINK, so that should be sorted. Alavense (talk) 07:12, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since its a minor MOS change I fixed myself Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 02:16, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closing. --PresN 01:02, 17 September 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, 17 September 2024 (UTC) [2].[reply]

Nominator(s): XR228 (talk) 01:19, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another Seattle Kraken list nomination—this time seasons. I know that this list is very short, but it will continue to get longer every year. Thanks. XR228 (talk) 01:19, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose on criterion 3c. The list could reasonably be included, and would almost certainly work better, at Seattle Kraken#Season-by-season record. We cannot argue "it will continue to get longer" per WP:CRYSTALBALL. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:00, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Seconded - the minimum length for an FL isn't set in stone, but it's usually considered to be 8 to 10. Three is too small, and this whole list could fit at the team article. --PresN 11:40, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thirded based on length. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:27, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I will repeal the nomination. I guess I'll just promote this list in five years lol XR228 (talk) 15:46, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closing. --PresN 15:50, 16 September 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, 16 September 2024 (UTC) [3].[reply]

Nominator(s): The Herald, ~ Matthewrb ^{Talk to me · Changes I've made} 05:39, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I still believe it's of Featured List quality. My co-nominator, The Herald, took time to address many of the issues since the last FLC. ~ Matthewrb ^{Talk to me · Changes I've made} 05:39, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments

• Since the list is about missions, the mission column should be made the primary one in the "Alphabetical mission types".
• That same table should be made sortable on par with the other tables in the list.
• Also, the tables that I checked didn't have table captions.
• In the cancelled missions table, Apollo 12 planning seems to be the same as the "As flown" data. What makes this a cancelled mission?
• That same table is missing row and column scope for the header cells. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:45, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. I added a note about Apollo 12, since it doesn't seem there was a formal designation change but rather a change in plans. ~ Matthewrb ^{Talk to me · Changes I've made} 04:40, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to MPGuy2824's comment above:

• Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting |+ caption_text as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |+ {{sronly|caption_text}} instead. You have it on the alphabetical table but not the others.
• Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. This is not a full review, and does not result in a support vote. --PresN 13:48, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. ~ Matthewrb ^{Talk to me · Changes I've made} 04:40, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@The Herald and Matthewrb: This nomination is reaching the point where it's going to be closed for lack of response; if you haven't already, please reach out to interested editors or wikiprojects to review. --PresN 21:51, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PresN Sure, no problem. I'll ping WikiProject Spaceflight. ~ Matthewrb ^{Talk to me · Changes I've made} 22:20, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a big shame, but at this point the nomination has been open for 2 months without any votes one way or another, so I'm going to have to close it. I had also asked for reviewers a couple times on discord, so I'm not sure why this one in particular isn't getting attention... but unfortunately it isn't. --PresN 22:11, 15 September 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 withdrawn by Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 14 September 2024 (UTC) [4].[reply]

Nominator(s): Di (they-them) (talk) 23:40, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it has a good overview of the subject and has comprehensive coverage with plenty of sources. This is my first time nominating anything for FLC, so please be patient with me. Di (they-them) (talk) 23:40, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting topic. I'll take a look soon. Queen of Hearts (talk) 23:52, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately looks like I'm gonna have to butt out of a full review because of real life, but I'll leave with a thought: this list has several unsourced entries and an unsourced sentence in the "History of White House pets" section; I don't have the energy to tag them all, but I recommend looking over this list with User:Phlsph7/HighlightUnreferencedPassages and citing anything highlighted red. Cheers, Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 23:54, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(and FWIW, I agree this is one of the rare cases where a bulleted list is the best re. below.) Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 23:56, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the nomination. A few things I noticed right away:

• There are links in headers, which is not allowed: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Section_headings
• Links are often duplicated, even if they are in the same section
• I would leave out Trump, Polk and Johnson, because you already mention them in the lead. Dajasj (talk) 07:33, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dibbing an image review for this – with a lead image like that, how can I not? I should be able to start in the next day or two. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 21:10, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Review completed:

• Alt text needs to be added to each image
• Sourcing for each image checks out (though I did fix a few links myself over at Commons; see my recent edits there)
• As works of the US Government, all images are appropriately licensed for the public domain
• All images contribute encyclopedic value to the list
• Each image is appropriately captioned

Once the lack of alt text is resolved, I expect to be able to pass this image review. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 22:22, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some general comments:

• Source formatting is inconsistent and really needs a thorough sweep; just a couple of small examples:

• |publisher= and |website= are both used for Business Insider; alternatively, Vogue is listed as a |publisher= in Ref. 167 when it should be |website=/|magazine=
• Several authors are missing author-link (e.g. Ref. 93, 94, 97, 100 all need Roosevelt wikilinked)
• Some are missing several parameters like access date, author names, website names, archive links, etc (e.g. Ref. 73)
• Websites/publishers/newspapers should either be wikilinked or not wikilinked, but it should be consistent
• I can't actually seem to access multiple sources (e.g. )

• I'm not particularly sure as to the reliability of several of the sources (e.g. Ref. 17, New York Post considering this is a politics-adjacent topic at least; Ref. 92, ispn.com; Ref. 150, bullysticksinfo.com just to name a couple)
• The White House Pets book in the 'Further Reading' section should probably be used more than once in the article
• The see also section is bloated; you can probably remove List of individual cats, List of individual dogs, the category and Sully at least
• The lead is really short. Perhaps just merge the lead with the history section?
• Perhaps others may disagree, but I'm really not a fan of how the list part of the article is divided into 45 headers/subsections. I feel like it would look better in a table format. A rough outlook at what this could look like is below (taking inspiration from List of presidents of the United States):

List of presidents of the United States from 1789 – till date.

No.	Portrait	Name	Term	Pets	Notes	Ref.
46		Joe Biden	January 20, 2021 – Incumbent	Champ (November 11, 2008 – June 19, 2021) – German Shepherd		[1]
				Major (born January 17, 2018) – German Shepherd	Rescue dog. Sent to live with family friends in Delaware by December 2021 after several White House biting incidents.
				Commander (born September 1, 2021) – German Shepherd	Given to the Biden family as a puppy by the president's brother, also removed from White House after biting incidents	[2] [3]
				Willow – gray tabby cat	Adopted after the cat jumped onstage during a rally in Pennsylvania in 2020. Willow, who Biden described as having "no limits", often sleeps on top of the president's head	[4] [5]

Sgubaldo (talk) 21:12, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Portrait of president is unnecessary unless animal is also in the picture. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 20:29, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, per my comment below. Sgubaldo (talk) 21:10, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Before any massive overhaul is done, I'd just like to say that I think the current simple section & bullet points style is preferred over a table style that Sgubaldo recommends above. It comes down to stylistic preference at the end, either way can work, but the important stuff is the text and links. We don't need distracting pictures of the presidents themselves; any images should be highlighting the pets (with the owners in the background often, sure), as is done currently. A bullet point entry with a link to the relevant pet, and then some text with details, is perfect and doesn't include any extraneous table layout stuff. (It's also friendlier and easier for people to maintain & edit in the future, although this is more a secondary concern.) Tables are good if there's more than two or three columns or things like numerical data to sort by, but that isn't the case here.

I'm personally a fan of short ledes, and think the current lede is fine-ish. It seems very difficult to construct an overall theory of "presidential pets" to explain in the lede that doesn't overlap with the "History" section on individual pets, so a short section makes sense - it's hard to make sweeping, overarching statements on this topic other than "Most Presidents have pets." Could be brushed up some if there are overarching things to say ("Presidential historian FirstName LastName suggests that keeping a pet leads to a 10% increase in popularity, as seen by the Checkers speech" or the like), but I expect a perfect lede to still be on the short side.

(Sgubaldo's other concerns are fine and should be fixed, of course. Just chipping in that I think the structure of the article is fine, since it's a decent amount of work to change it over, but I think such a change wouldn't be helpful anyway.) SnowFire (talk) 18:20, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good point on the images, the portraits are unnecessary. Sgubaldo (talk) 18:25, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with @SnowFire on this, I think an actual list format is preferred in this case over a table. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:17, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Di (they-them): A number of comments in this nomination thread have gone unaddressed. Are you still working on / wanting to promote this nomination? Hey man im josh (talk) 20:22, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't mind, I think I want to drop it. This was my first time trying to promote something so it's all a bit much for me right now. Di (they-them) (talk) 20:35, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all Di (they-them). We hope to see you back with another nomination when you're willing to give it a go again. In the mean time, you're welcome to of course stick around and provide reviews, which I find are a helpful way to get familiar with what we do here. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:15, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:15, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:26, 7 September 2024 (UTC) [5].[reply]

Nominator(s): Magentic Manifestations (talk) 16:23, 13 July 2024 (UTC) and The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:42, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is my first featured list nomination and I am nominating this post improving the article. This is a list of the national symbols of India. Thanks! Magentic Manifestations (talk) 16:23, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dajasj

Thanks for working on the list and nominating it! Some first thoughts:

• Have a look at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Data tables tutorial. Let me know if you have any questions!
• "Adopted" column is not really sortable (while other columns have the option to sort but are not really meant to be sorted)
• Random Capital letter in "The first two verses of the song were adopted as the National Song of India On 24 January 1950 by the Constituent Assembly of India."
• Try to minimise the text in the Notes column. Focus on what is relevant for it as national symbol. I think it is also good for accessibility if you don't change font size.
• I'm missing context for what is up with Hockey. Dajasj (talk) 16:58, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review and comments. I have addressed the comments (MOS, sorting, caps and font size) except the notes part, which I will work on trimming it to keep it relevant.

For the last point, Hockey is listed as a national game in government websites, text books etc. but as per an official note, there is no declared national game. Not sure whether to omit this altogether or keep it with mentioning the same in comments. Magentic Manifestations (talk) 18:51, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kavyansh

I appreciate you nominating the list and I respect the efforts that must have been made to improve the list to this extent. That being said, I have a few fundamental issues with this nomination. The official Nation Portal of India lists only these 8 national symbols. Our list has 21 official symbols. Even if me make an exception for the "official name", the other alleged national symbols are being cited by an archived version of this site. It is a site hosted by "International Institute of Health and Hygiene,New Delhi" and sponsored by "Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change Govt of India". Does that make it an official site of the Government of India (as claimed in the citation)? For the other alleged national symbols, our article cites various news articles like TOI or HT. While these news articles do confirm the claim, wouldn't it be much better to cite an official source? For example, rather than this news article, why not directly cite this official declaration. But that leads me to the next question: if there are actual official symbols not specified in the Nation Portal of India website, what steps have we taken to ensure that the list is comprehensive? It is claimed by a HT article that Ganga is the national river of India. I am not able to find an official reliable source for it! The closest I can find is this audit report from the CAG, which again isn't an official declaration. So what criteria are we exactly using to determine which symbol gets to be in this list and which doesn't? How exactly are we justifying keeping Hockey as the National game? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:26, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kavyansh.Singh Thanks for the comments. I understand that your question broadly focuses on the comprehensiveness of the symbols and the verifiability of the same.

As there is no clear definition of what constitutes a official/national symbol (either officially or as an agreed consensus in WP), I am afraid that the list can neither be comprehensive nor be exhaustive. The article covers symbols that are generally regarded as official/national symbols as per various given sources. For the question of whether these 21 symbols are verifiable as official, let us classify into three categories for the discussion at hand.

a. Fifteen symbols with official sources:

1. Eleven symbols, which are quoted as such directly in the official source: Official name and the nine symbols (motto is part of the emblem, described in detail in the same site) listed here officially are clear. National days are mentioned in the same official site here. These are fairly straightforward.
2. Four symbols, where official press releases available. These have official sources, so verifiability should not be a concern. (Aquatic Animal: Official source by the Ministry of Environment here, Heritage animal: Official press release by the Ministry of Environment here, River: Apart from news sources, official press release from PMO here and official website of NMCG, Ministry of Jal Shakti also states so here, Microbe: Official press release by the Ministry of Environment here)

b. Four symbols, where Government affiliated sources and other citations are available. As there are multiple government affiliated sources and independent sources backing the same information, they are verifiable plus there are no sources stating anything to the contrary.

1. Pledge: Apart from the general news sources, it is mentioned as such in Government sources (From Ministry of Education here, other here) and in a discussion in Parliament as a pledge (here).
2. Tree and Fruit: These are quoted here in a site maintained by ENVIS, a government organization functioning under the Ministry of Environment. While not officially the Government website, it is affiliated to the Government. There are multiple other government affiliated sources/court mentions (For fruit: here, here, here and for tree: here, here, here, here) + independent news sources.
3. Reptile: Apart from the general news sources, it is mentioned as such in Government exams(here), question papers (here), text books (here) and third party sources (here)

c. Two symbols, with contradictory sources.

1. Flower: ENVIS source here and other government affiliated source here + was part of the official symbols here. It was not mentioned as a national flower in an RTI query in 2017 and in Parliament in 2019 (here), but was part of the official website till 2021, referenced as such in official statements in 2019 (here) and by ministers in 2022 (here, here)
2. Game: As I had mentioned in the previous revert, I am not sure whether to keep hockey or not. An RTI reply in 2012 said that officially there is no national game here and it was reiterated in 2020 here. While the ENVIS source still lists it here.

For both the above cases, can remove/keep with a note based on consensus here.

I have tried to address the points raised in your queries. Please do let me know if you have further comments/clarification on the same. Thanks again! Magentic Manifestations (talk) 10:44, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the delayed response. I understand that it is wrong to hold our editors accountable for information that is simply not available or unclear, but I am still not entirely convinced. In the lead of the list (which I believe needs to be more elaborate), we claim, "The Government of India has designated official national symbols that represent the Republic of India." However, the instances here unfortunately show that there are symbols that are not officially designated. As things stand, if the list can neither be comprehensive nor exhaustive, then we need to set clear criteria for what is to be included and what is not. In my opinion, that criteria should be based on what reliable official sources say. Alternatively, given the lack of available information, we can set the criteria based on the opinions of the major contributors to this list or through a talk page discussion (RfC if required). I won't oppose the nomination merely for this reason, but in my opinion, government exam question papers, privately published grade 6 textbooks, and even sites affiliated with the government aren't entirely reliable for such extraordinary claims. As a side note, I have filled a RTI application regarding this awaiting response from the Ministry of Home Affairs. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:30, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kavyansh.Singh I do agree with your point on the criteria and I am open to take it to a discussion as there seems to be no precedent or agreement on what is consisted as a national symbol (apart from these, there are symbols which are termed as national announced by private organizations as well!). If your RTI gets a revert, nothing like it as it will probably help clarify things from the official perspective. Then the question is whether we split into two sections or keep only the official symbols recognised. Thanks! Magentic Manifestations (talk) 13:29, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting |+ caption_text as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |+ {{sronly|caption_text}} instead.
• Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. This is not a full review, and does not result in a support vote. --PresN 13:37, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @PresN Thanks for the comment. Have addressed the same! Magentic Manifestations (talk) 13:53, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, this nomination has been open now for over 2 months without any support votes. As such, I'm going to close it down. Feel free to renominate whenever, but consider asking other editors or relevant wikiprojects to review the list if you do so that it can get more attention. --PresN 21:38, 6 September 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.