Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Bolivian cities by population/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 Crisco 1492 10:35, 13 April 2014 (UTC) ].

List of Bolivian cities by population

 * Nominator(s): —Michael Jester (talk &#183; contribs) 20:17, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it complies with the FL criteria. I modeled the article after another FL (List of US cities by population), and I feel this article is even a bit more in depth that the one mentioned. It is a short article with few references, but I believe it still shows great work. I appreciate all in advance who take the time to review the article. —Michael Jester (talk &#183; contribs) 20:17, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Support a good list. Good luck the balance of the way. Hwy43 (talk) 03:39, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Hwy43. I appreciate everything you have done to help improve this article.—Michael Jester (talk &#183; contribs) 14:55, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment Would prefer the photographs to be right justified along the side of the table to remove some of the white space. Ideally in the order of the list itself. Mattximus (talk) 23:56, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Removed the gallery and placed it in the table area.—Michael Jester (talk &#183; contribs) 13:28, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Embedding the photos within the table creates excessive blank space within each row. I'd rather see them outside the table to the right, and I don't think we need photos for every city either. Perhaps just the ten largest. Hwy43 (talk) 06:56, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I will have to agree. Mattximus (talk) 19:30, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I have to disagree. For someone like me who has a small screen for my computer, placing the images on the side of the tables makes the images go very far down the page, extending past the references. It looks much cleaner IMO either in the table or as a gallery as it was before.—Michael Jester (talk &#183; contribs) 19:35, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It appears you've revisited this. Your top five cities multiple image treatment looks great. Hwy43 (talk) 22:47, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I do have to agree, it makes the table much cleaner.—Michael Jester (talk &#183; contribs) 05:20, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Pictures are much better now, but I'm not sure that graph is very meaningful. In fact, giving a city of 10,000 the same weight as a city of 1,000,000 is misleading. I would remove it in favour of a map, which is pretty necessary for a page like this and would convey the same information. Mattximus (talk) 18:45, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I am attempting to make a map, however a few cities near the same area, which causes an overlap. Is there any advice for that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Jester (talk • contribs)


 * Comment: (having stumbled here from my FLC discussion page). Almost ready to support, but just curious why there isn't info from prior census years? &mdash; Cirt (talk) 03:43, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Could you elaborate on this?—Michael Jester (talk &#183; contribs) 04:01, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes. 2001 Bolivian census states this was the tenth (10th) census of Bolivia. So why is there not info from the previous nine (9) census compilations? &mdash; Cirt (talk) 03:39, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * There is info on the 2012 and 2001 census. The only other census in which the data on cities is public is the 1992 census. I can add this to the article, if you want.—Michael Jester (talk &#183; contribs) 05:08, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Just thought I'd pipe in that all the recent successful list of municipality FLCs have had only the two most recent census counts. Hwy43 (talk) 06:14, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * That's nice. But it seems like WP:RECENTISM and we shouldn't exhibit that as a model for featured quality pages -- especially when looking at WP:WIAFL: Point 3. Comprehensiveness. You see what I mean? &mdash; Cirt (talk) 06:16, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, it would be nice just as a sidenote, if someone were to create at the very least a nice sourced stub for 1992 Bolivian census. Cheers, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 06:20, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * If a source is readily available to add a 1992 census population column, I suggest resisting the temptation of including a "Change" column that directly compares the 1992 and 2012 populations. The boundaries of cities between 2012 and 2001 may be different, while there may be further differences between the boundaries of the same between 2001 and 1992. If there was a boundary change between 2012 and 2001, the figure in the current "Change" column may not actually reflect true change within current boundaries. This risk would be compounded if there were different city boundaries for all three years. This is why statistics agencies (US Census Bureau, Statistics Canada, etc.) often only compare current census' counts with the most recent census' counts in its tables, adjusting the counts of the latter where intercensal boundary adjustments have occurred to reflect true changes. This is why most tables in Wikipedia follow suit. If this is confusing, see List of census agglomerations in Alberta where counts from the last four censuses are presented, with various notes associated with certain counts from 1996, 2001 and 2006. No change columns are presented as some entries have one, two or three intercensal boundary adjustments within the 20-year timeframe. Does this help to understand how the pursuit of comprehensiveness to avoid a perception of recentism can result in unintended factual errors? Hwy43 (talk) 07:40, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I have created an article on the 1992 census. Also, information relating to city population is readily available, if you want I can add it.—Michael Jester (talk &#183; contribs) 19:52, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, it would be most helpful if you would, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 15:10, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, I will have it completed by tomorrow night.—Michael Jester (talk &#183; contribs) 22:59, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

What is the status of this nomination? The 1992 census was not added as promised about one month ago. Why are you creating articles consisting of one sentence and a small table? Could you not merge it to this list? Regards. --Tomcat (7) 15:42, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delegate comment: This list has been archived. Please wait for at least two weeks before renominating. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:35, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


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