Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Counties of Romania/archive1


 * 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.

Counties of Romania

 * Nominator(s): Nergaal (talk) 03:34, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

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)


 * Comment—no dab links, no dead external links (one still works, even though it returns a 404). Ucucha 09:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Shouldn't the name be List of counties in Romania per WP:LISTNAME?— Chris! c / t 20:46, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * I tweaked the intro to be less repetitive. Nergaal (talk) 20:32, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * It is not clear to me what I should do about this. Any ideas? Nergaal (talk) 00:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * Fine with me. I will remove the links. Nergaal (talk) 19:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * In a similar vein, what makes, drawn from , 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)
 * 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)


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