Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Counties of Romania/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 not promoted by Dabomb87 21:41, 24 September 2010 [1].

Counties of Romania[edit]

Counties of Romania (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Nergaal (talk) 03:34, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because after putting a bunch of work into it I think it is ready to be a FL. Nergaal (talk) 03:34, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not a simple table, but also provides some background. Considering this, with or without "list of" in the title is fine, but I prefer not having an unnecessary appendix to the title. Also, see 1, 2, 3, and 4 for similar examples, some of which are even more-so just-a-table-lists. Nergaal (talk) 21:18, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Anyway, I've turned the above into a redirect as it is a plausible search term.—Chris!c/t 22:58, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: Looks very good, just a couple of questions and comments.
  • Since this list is about the present counties, the intro and history section could be shortened quite a bit in my opinion. Most of what is said there, relates to historical divisions and should go (if not already present) to the Historical administrative divisions of Romania article. In my opinion it would suffice to mention when the present division came into place, what it looks like and what was the division before it. You also might want to merge history and intro after shortening. The second map in the article (and possibly also the third) could be removed in the process.
  • It is not clear to me what you think should be chopped off from the intro. As for the history section, I think every list should have such a section. I think it is ok to have it shorter, but I do not think it should be removed completely. Other similar FLs have a section like this: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 (I am not saying they currently pass the criteria, but that they were promoted with a history-like section). Nergaal (talk) 19:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't mean to remove the history. However I think that large parts of the intro and the history section are almost identical in content. I suggest to merge the history in the intro section. AFAIK you can have four paragraphs in the intro according to the MOS. So you can have one additional paragraph. Also the first paragraph is very short and could be merged into another paragraph or expanded. bamse (talk) 19:59, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tweaked the intro to be less repetitive. Nergaal (talk) 20:32, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still too much repetition for my taste. Some examples: The earliest organization into judeţe of the Principalities of Wallachia, termed ţinuturi in Moldavia, dates back to at least the late 14th century. (intro) versus The earliest organization into judeţe (for Wallachia), and ţinuturi (for Moldavia), dates back at least to the late 14th century. (history); The 41 counties (Romanian: judeţe) and the municipality of Bucharest comprise the official administrative divisions of Romania. They represent the NUTS-3 statistical subdivisions of the European Union (intro) versus At present, Romania is divided into 41 counties and one municipality (Bucharest); these are assigned as NUTS-3 geocode statistical subdivision scheme of Romania within the European Union. (history). I'd prefer a long intro (and no history) section to reading the same thing twice. If it was a long article you could claim summary style for the intro, but here there are only two sections and the information in these sections should not be repetitive at all in my opinion. bamse (talk) 21:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am confused; isn't the lead supposed to summarize the entire article? The information in these two sentences is notable enough to warrant mention in the intro; do you have a suggestion how to trim them not to be repetitive? Nergaal (talk) 18:10, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No idea what it is supposed to do. To me it is a bit weird to summarize one section in another section of about equal length. bamse (talk) 22:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The idea that these two points are important enough to be mentioned in the intro, but there is not much more to be said about it to put more stuff in the article. They are two sentences out of 10 in the intro so it is not really a major. Unless someone comes up with an idea, I would prefer to leave them as they are now. Nergaal (talk) 20:03, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I kind of suggested an idea above. Unless another reviewer worries about it, let's leave it as is. bamse (talk) 23:02, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't quite understand: "In a number of cases, the name of the county seat or another large city in the county is also given by that river." Can you explain?
  • For example: Suceava River gives its name to both the county and the county seat. So the city was named after the river, but when naming the county one could say it comes from the city. Nergaal (talk) 18:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see. So if the origin is not known (if it is not known if it comes from the city or from the river), shouldn't you mention both in that column (separated by "or")?
  • I guess I messed this one up: I am pretty sure the names were given by the rivers (although I cannot find a good reference for that; for example if one goes through the counties that don't exist anymore a lot of them have the name of a major river flowing through them while there is no city with that name). The note was only meant to clarify why so many counties share the name with the county seat but the name is from the river instead. Nergaal (talk) 20:03, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not clear to me what I should do about this. Any ideas? Nergaal (talk) 00:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ideally there should be a reference for this. However unless somebody disputes that the name comes from the river, I guess it is fine. bamse (talk) 08:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from bamse (talk) 23:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*What does "...usual abbreviations in use..." in note 5 mean? Who uses them? In which context are they used as such?
  • For statistics purposes the license plate abbreviations are used in various circumstances. For example Romanian identity card. I guess a similar example is in the US when writing mailing addresses, people tend to use "TX" for a Texas address. I don't know how to make this less vague without changing the intended meaning. Nergaal (talk) 18:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see. I understood the licence plate example, however reading the note, I thought that there were other uses ("usual abbreviations in use"). Why not mention other uses ("...such as in mailing addresses,...") Since the column is called "ISO code", I think that note 5 should first of all mention the ISO code and then other uses, something like: "These are the ISO 3166-2:RO which are also ..." bamse (talk) 18:54, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The numbers in the "Postal Code" column are the same as "xx" in note 6, right? Could you mention this explicitly in note 6?
  • Why does Sibiu have a different map style?
  • The user who worked on these maps initially updated all of them with the same format; later he changed some of them to a different format. The original format was deleted only for this one so I could not get the old version. Unfortunately the user is not really active anymore. Nergaal (talk) 18:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Guess what, somebody created the missing map. ;-) bamse (talk) 18:54, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the statoids link in the external link section for? It does not really relate to Romania.
  • I had pasted the wrong link. It should be fine now. Nergaal (talk) 18:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

bamse (talk) 09:13, 1 September 2010 (UTC) Thanks for your reply. I striked a bit and asked some more questions where I am still confused. One more thing:[reply]

  • Bucuresti seems special. Its Postal code and Area code entries need some explanation (in a footnote or so). bamse (talk) 18:54, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note 9 is fine. In note 10 at least the first parentheses needs some rewording. Do I understand correctly, that +40-21-1234567 would get me to Bucharest while +40-258-1234567 would get me to somewhere in Alba? bamse (talk) 21:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Almost: +40-21-1234567 is Bucharest while +40-258-123456 is Alba (2+2+7 vs 2+3+6 digits). Nergaal (talk) 22:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note 7 has seven letters "c" (for any county). I think it should be mentioned in note 7 that it is seven "c" only for Bucharest. bamse (talk) 10:30, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strange that I missed that. Nergaal (talk) 18:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I also wonder if "1" (instead of "1x") would be better for Bucharest's area code since "1x" could be mistaken to mean "10, 11, 12,..., 19". bamse (talk) 10:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It kind of does mean that. 1x is for Bucharest, 2x is for Moldova, 3x, 4x, 5x, and 6x for counties, 8x and 9x are special pay numbers, 7x are mobile phones. Nergaal (talk) 18:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Maybe to follow your nomenclature (note 7), "1c" (instead of "1x") might be more logical. I leave it up to you to decide here what is best. Still, should note 10 be added to Ilfov county as well? I still think that the parentheses in note 10 ("unlike two-digits suffixes for unlike any county") is non-English. Please correct me if I am wrong. bamse (talk) 22:44, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the note instead of the table entry. It should be consistent now. I also added the note to Ilfov, as I had forgotten about it. I think the note is ok now. Nergaal (talk) 19:49, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good now. bamse (talk) 22:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One more question:

  • Does "county seat" need to be explained or wikilinked, or is it obvious what it is? bamse (talk) 21:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment - I'm a little concerned by this link and this one. Even if they present a faithful reproduction of a peer-reviewed source (Dariescu's book), they are a possible copyright violation (see WP:ELNEVER for that) and are blogs (WP:ELNO point 11, and although the material is "written by a recognized authority", it's not actually Darlescu's blog, is it?). A possible solution would be to simply remove the links: you accessed the material and used it, it's valid, but the way it's linked to a blog is not. - Biruitorul Talk 16:32, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fine with me. I will remove the links. Nergaal (talk) 19:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In a similar vein, what makes [2], drawn from [3], worth linking to? Sure, it's interesting, but it's a blog posting written by non-experts, and doesn't contribute a scholarly note to the article. - Biruitorul Talk 18:11, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for fixing lots of minor issues throughout the article. The blog itself is not the reason I added it; I added it because I thought that the maps it shows are relevant to the subject, and I don't think wikipedia has such maps available. Nergaal (talk) 19:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 10:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  • "41 judeţe (singular judeţ), and the municipality of Bucharest, comprise the official administrative divisions of Romania" I'd start the opposite way round so you appeal to non-experts, i.e. say "Romania comprises 41...".
  • No need for "in fact" or bold jurisdiction.
  • "The correct word for county in Romanian is "comitat", from "comte" meaning "count"." is this even relevant?
  • Don't overlink Judeţ. (it's currently linked four times in the first para)
  • Don't overlink Municipality or Bucharest please.
  • Explain NUTS-3 before just using the term.
  • "clickable imagemap" - can't you write this in terms that a non-expert could understand?
  • Area column does not sort correctly.
  • Why is "Bucureşti" highlighted, there's no key to indicate what it means, and it breaches WP:ACCESS using colour only.
  • Notes generally need references.

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:14, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay in answering (away for a week). The first half of the issues (related to the intro) were because an IP decided to change the intro very significantly right before your revies; I've reverted those edits. Otherwise:
  • municipality - where is it linked?
  • I explained NUTS but it is not very informative
  • clickable imagemap - any ideas how?
  • area sorting is fixed
  • Bucharest is highlighted because it is not a county but a municipality (with an identical status as a county); how is labeling the entry differently with italics in the county seat not sufficient?
  • the first three notes and the later ones can be removed if you think they cannot be listed without a reference; would [4] be ok?

Nergaal (talk) 13:12, 16 September 2010 (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_candidates/Counties_of_Romania/archive1&oldid=1140157085"