This article is within the scope of WikiProject Croatia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Croatia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CroatiaWikipedia:WikiProject CroatiaTemplate:WikiProject CroatiaCroatia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject World Heritage Sites, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.World Heritage SitesWikipedia:WikiProject World Heritage SitesTemplate:WikiProject World Heritage SitesWorld Heritage Sites articles
I don't understand the tentative list section. The sites listed there aren't World Heritage Sites, so what are they? Cordless Larry (talk) 11:18, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What is the issue with the formatting? I don't understand why someone is eager to revert small changes in column width. And there is no "standard" for table formatting; see the following links below where the tables look different:
So again I ask: what is so wrong with the changes made?
--Jesuislafete (talk) 19:33, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You did your best to find the lists that "do not" use the specific format, which is a small minority. I will eventually get to lists for Spain and Italy to unify the style. It is more compact than what you propose and more convenient for the reader, for example. --Tone 19:45, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Spain has been promoted to a FL in 2010 and we should check if it still fits while Italy is not a FL. --Tone 19:51, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is assuming bad faith by User:Tone. I am surprised that you chose to accuse me rather than answering my question on the formatting. It appears to me that you are more interested in keeping your formatting than actually improving the page. You did not ever use the talk page to explain yourself. I was the one who started a discussion on the talk page.
Can you please link me a page that says that this formatting is required for World Heritage sites? --Jesuislafete (talk) 19:54, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is not formally required, however, these articles went through a detailed review and were considered good. The style is compact, readable, adjustable to a wide variety of screens. And since you picked European lists, you must have seen that almost all of them are using the same style. So, it is not assuming bad faith, just pointing out the obvious ;) --Tone 20:03, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yet you were willing to edit war over table widths rather than using the talk page. Incredible. --Jesuislafete (talk) 16:34, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]