Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/Municipalities of Lithuania/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list removal 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 kept by The Rambling Man 16:37, 5 May 2011 [1].

Municipalities of Lithuania[edit]

Municipalities of Lithuania (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Notified: Renata3, WP LITH

I am nominating this for featured list removal because it is poorly referenced. It has only one source in the reference section, and one note. Eisfbnore talk 20:52, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Unfortunately, the single reference is to the search page. Users have to enter the search parameters manually to access the information. It would be advantageous to use other sources (such as the CIA book, or even something in Lithuanian would be okay) besides this one. If this information truly is not available, well, the reference used does actually source all information in the table so it's not that big of a deal that it's the only one we have for the table.
    • Most of the sentences in the lead now have inline cites. Please flag any remaining sentences that need one. Novickas (talk) 15:24, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the Lede has information that isn't found in the table. These things should be sourced:
    • "there are 43 district municipalities that roughly correspond to districts that existed under the Soviet rule." should be sourced
    • "The special status of Visaginas city municipality (based on the 13th largest city) can be explained by the fact that the majority of the residents are Russians."
    • " Palanga city municipality is called this despite actually including a group of popular sea resorts rather than a single city." etc
  • The reference has updated population and population density figures for 2010, and our table should be updated to reflect that
      • This requirement is a little worrisome in terms of maintenance. I really don't think their populations changed much over the course of two years. An update every five years would seem in order tho. Novickas (talk) 15:24, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many of the images of the coats of arms have .png and .svg alternatives which should be used instead of the .gifs
      • Could you explain why .png format is more desirable, and/or point to WP guideline page on this? Novickas (talk) 15:24, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article really isn't that bad, so hopefully it can be saved. Matthewedwards :  Chat  22:41, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • First of all, there should be two articles, one called municipalities of Lithuania, which is a general discussion of the local government and geographical subdivision, and one article, list of municipalities of Lithuania, which actually lists all of them.
  • Population needs updating
  • The prose is below featured standards, with many grammatical and not least punctuational oddities.
  • I would liked to have seen the municipality column only list the name, and then make a second column with "district", "city" or "municipality", which would allow the reader to sort by type.
  • I'm not convinced if we need to include rank columns, as the table is sortable, and the reader will get a pretty good idea of how the municipality is ranked.
  • The lead is entirely unreferenced.
  • The reference provided is perhaps okay, as it is fairly straight-forward to get out numbers.
  • Footnoted comments and references are mixed.
  • To ease readability, the numbers should be right-aligned.

Arsenikk (talk) 23:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

      • See article for lead rewrite, reference additions, separation of notes and references. I agree with the addition of a 'type' column, we could remove the ranking of density to make way for it. I rather like the rankings in general, but would defer to a consensus for removal. As far as right-alignment of numbers, I'm not seeing that in the other FLs I checked (e.g. List of tallest buildings in Chicago). Novickas (talk) 15:24, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist unless much better referenced. Nergaal (talk) 02:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've requested three books from the local library system. They will arrive at my branch within a few days, hopefully they'll offer some useful stuff. Additionally, an IP posted on the talk page of this nomination that people may have missed:

    Hello. I'm lithuanian moderator Profcard in Wikimapia project. Sadly wikipedia contains poor information. Unfortunately, I had to write municipality short description in wikimapia myself. I permit using english text of municipalities (from wikimapia, as I'm only author) if this helped to keep this feature from failure here. Just note full wikimapia.org link that people would found box with descriptions by few clicks. Contact me in wikimapia if there'll be questions.

    I'm not familiar with WikiMapia's licensing and its compatibility with Wikipedia, but it's something to look at. Matthewedwards :  Chat  04:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two of the books I ordered came in. They don't really have the information we need for this page. :( Matthewedwards :  Chat  19:34, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • I think this list should discuss counties also, which would mean have another table with area/population/etc of counties and rename the article to "Municipalities and Counties of Lithuania". Nergaal (talk) 20:20, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why? Counties have their own little list. Renata (talk) 22:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will try to see what can be done to address the issues. (Sorry for a late reaction -- it was on my mental to do list, but I forgot about it until it popped up on my watchlist today again). Renata (talk) 22:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some questions - one, do these sorts of articles need to be updated annually to maintain featured status? (the current population stats are from 2008). Two, another editor has called for a separate, stand-alone article; do other editors see it as a prerequisite to Featured List status? Clearly one could be written here, but I don't see it in Wikipedia:Featured list criteria. Three, I'd like to ask for an extension to the review period of about a week - any objections? Novickas (talk) 00:13, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Question for other reviewers how is this list not a content fork of the counties list, Counties of Lithuania (or the other way around?)? This has 60 entries while the counties has 10. And it's not like either of these lists has any extra information asides from the tables (like historical issues). Being such a small country, I don't see why there is a need for two FLs. Nergaal (talk) 00:30, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a very good point. Given that the combined size is about 30kb, they're strong candidates for a merge into Counties and municipalities of Lithuania. —WFC— 12:18, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • For the record, I know this is the oldest current FLRC, but work is ongoing, so I'm very happy to see it carry on for a while. —WFC— 15:48, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • This one does have some historical info now. Could you explain why you see the counties list as a content fork? Counties and munis are quite separate. (LT counties are not just an aggregation of munis, their governors are appointed by the central govt, among other differences). Novickas (talk) 15:24, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment about being a possible content fork stricken. The situation in Lithuania seems analogous to MPs vs local government in England; no-one would suggest merging lists on those topics, regardless of size. —WFC— 22:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Can I get a status update? The list hasn't been edited in about two weeks. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:41, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry for missing it. My main concern about referencing has been solved, but I'll let other editors answer about content forking. Eisfbnore talk 23:57, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My concern about forking has been dealt with; the only thing now is that the lead itself needs to explain (in a roundabout way) what is significant and distinct about municipalities. As far as I can tell, all actional comments have been responded to (not necessarily resolved, but the balls are in the reviewers' courts), and no fresh ones have been made. That said, work has stopped and at a glance I don't think this is quite ready to be kept, so I'll do a brief review. —WFC— 00:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from WFC

  • I'm going to give the lead a go myself over the next day or so. I'm not an expert, but I've got a reasonable idea of how to structure it.
  • Okay, I've tweaked the lead's structure, adding in a few basic facts based on the country's article. I'll dig for sources tomorrow and make any corrections if someone else doesn't beat me to it.
  • I think we need a paragraph (probably between the current first and second paragraph), explaining what municipalities actually do. At the moment we are listing a political subdivision, but not explaining why this level of subdivision is distinct or significant from the ones above and below. If a paragraph of this nature is added, it would further improve the lead, and dispel any lingering concerns over whether this is a fork. —WFC— 00:57, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The referencing situation appears worrying at a glance, but isn't a big deal. You don't need many references to verify this entire list. However, all reference dates should be formatted in the same way (whichever date format you like, as long as it's consistent), and ref 8 is a footnote, and should therefore have its own area.
  • I see no point at all to the rank columns, given that the table is sortable. Furthermore, by removing these columns, there would be space to add in a column for individual maps (such as File:Varena district location.png).

At a glance this list appears to be in worse shape than it really is. I'll do what I can with the lead, and then we'll take it from there. —WFC— 00:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Fixed footnote 8. Removed rank columns (these pre-dated sortable tables) and hacked something to replace them. I do believe having ranks provides very useful info. I do not believe adding locator maps is wise -- they will be either too small to be useful or the table will balloon. Renata (talk) 03:03, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Unconventional looking, but the principles behind that hack are an excellent compromise. —WFC— 09:54, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Looks like work is ongoing. Can someone ping me on my talk when the remaining issues are addressed? Dabomb87 (talk) 21:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • ...and now it's been four weeks since the article was last edited. I don't want to delist this article given the effort put in, but if no further activity occurs, I may have no other choice. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:54, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Why? Pretty much all of the objections have been resolved. Renata (talk) 00:39, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • Are they? It's hard to tell what has and hasn't been addressed when many of the above concerns remain unstruck. Could you ask all reviewers to revisit this FLRC? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:41, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • Done. Notified all (I think). Renata (talk) 14:23, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments There's a couple of "bugs" still, but overall there's been some great work from everyone who edited this article. Nominator's issues seem resolved, as are mine (mostly, see below) and most everyone else's, too.

  • Lead is good, but one question: why when translating the words for "counties", "municipalities" and "elderships" is the singular for counties given first, but plural version for municipalities and elderships?
  • No link to the article "municipality". Since it has different meanings to people in different parts of the world, linking, or explaining exactly what a municipality is or equivalent to (town, city?) would help. As would explaining briefly what an eldership is (Similar to a village or hamlet perhaps?)
  • The colours on that map need toning down a bit. The colours for Klaipeda, Vilnius, Alytus and Utena are horrendous against the black text and make it hard to read (paste the article's URL into the field at http://colorfilter.wickline.org/?j=1;t=a and then when the results page loads, click a few different variations in the Green box. Nice soft pastel colours like those at Help:Using colours would be an improvement.
  • Earlier in the nomination I was asked to explain why .png format is more desirable than gif or jpeg for the shields, and/or to link to a WP guideline on this. Wikipedia:Image use policy#Format. However, while this should be done, it's not something that any of the Featured list criteria ask for, so it won't stop it being kept in the end.

Almost ready to say "keep". Matthewedwards :  Chat  04:02, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

  • Soviet Socialist Republic doesn't need to be linked twice in the lead.
  • Check the sorting of the second, third, and fourth columns. The diacritics that some of the places begin their names with are causing them to sort after those that start with the regular (English) alphabet, when they should be sorting with their respective letters. May need sorting templates to fix this one.
  • The general reference should be formatted with the same information as an inline citation, not as a bare external link. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:41, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • The references are not a big issue anymore, but I am still not sure we need both a "municipalities" and a "counties" FL when they overlap so much. Nergaal (talk) 01:31, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Keep – The citations have been improved, which were the issue I started this FLRC with. However, I'm not sure if there is a consensus on merging or not merging this list with Counties of Lithuania. I hope that issue will be solved before the closing of this FLRC --Eisfbnore talk 19:37, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist unless concerns have now been addressed. It's been nearly four months, and while these can last as long as needed, 4 months is pushing it. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 03:59, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_removal_candidates/Municipalities_of_Lithuania/archive1&oldid=1138490356"