Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of parishes in Louisiana

List of parishes in Louisiana‎
This is closely modelled on the Featured List List of counties in Kentucky. It is useful (pulls together information not otherwise available in one place), comprehensive (includes all current parishes and counties), factually accurate (with references), stable (assumeing Louisiana doesn't dramatically re-organise its local goverment), uncontroversial (no disputes)and well-constructed (clearly laid out); the lead explains the historical context, and the headings and TOC are apropriate; and images are all the quick-loading SVG versions. Tom pw (talk) 20:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Support, perfect. -Phoenix 02:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose : several tweaks are needed.
 * Reference location needs revision per Footnotes
 * I don't understand... revising in what way? Tom pw (talk) 20:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * After punctuiation without a space (and with punctuiation only BEFORE the reference, not before and after.) Circeus 17:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ Tom pw (talk) 20:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Per WP:MOSDATES links to a year that is not part of a full date have to go.
 * ✅ Tom pw (talk)
 * It's not clear whether Biloxi and Pascagoula parishes were ever actually part of Louisiana. They sound as if they were transferred directly from West Florida to Mississipi.
 * ✅ Tom pw (talk)
 * The table should use semantic table header cell (I'm not protesting the formatting, only the use of normal cells instead of header ones.)
 * ✅ Tom pw (talk)
 * Circeus 19:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I hate to do this, but I'm going to have to challenge the accuracy of the source that claims that Pascagoula and Biloxi parishes were ever part of Louisiana. Based on my research for Territorial evolution of the United States, I can't find any transfer of land from Louisiana to Mississippi Territory; it's possible Louisiana provisionally created these parishes, similar to how California provisionally created Pautah County, but the land was never part of Louisiana, again, based on my research. I could well be wrong, but this needs to be sorted out. Based on what I know: the United States initially annexed the Baton Rouge District and Mobile District of West Florida, both of which made up the Republic of West Florida, as part of the Louisiana Purchase. The Mobile District's borders were the Pearl River to the Perdido River, i.e. the panhandles of Mississippi and Alabama. The Baton Rouge District was claimed as part of the Louisiana Purchase from the start, and was always assigned to Orleans Territory. The Mobile District was annexed in paper in 1810, and in action in 1812, after which the Mobile District assigned to Mississippi Territory. Now, it's possible that it was initially assigned to Louisiana or Orleans Territory first - but I haven't been able to find a source that says that. However, this period of US and West Florida history is cloudy at best, but I still think maybe it's best to have a few more weasel words in there, like "Biloxi et.al. Parish was declared by the territorial government but it remains unclear if the land was ever part of Louisiana"? I think I'm rambling now, but you get my point I hope. Do we know if this land was ever actually part of Orleans Territory/State of Louisiana, or was it another phantom like Pautah County? And it's entirely possible that my list needs further refinement and research. --Golbez 14:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * this states that the "West Florida Parishes join the Territory" in 1811... aha this states that Pascagoula and Biloxi parishes were created in 1811, formed from West Florida Territory, and "abolished 1812 when part of W. FL was transferred to Mississippi Territory". I've added references accordingly (and also for the other defunct parishes). I see where you're coming from with the whole "paper-only" thing. Howvere, I do feel that as they offically exsisted, and this exsistence is properly referenced in the article, then they should be included. If you have a source that states that they didn't have any exsistence beyond paper, then by all means add a note to this effect (with a reference of course). Tom pw (talk) 22:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Based on your explanation and the additional source, I'll yield that my information is either wrong or incomplete. :) At the very least, your information is well-cited, and that's all we can ask for, right? I'll come back later if further research expands this. Switching to support. --Golbez 22:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Looks fine to me now. It'd be best if the former parishes and counties could be expanded some, but the rest is okay. Circeus 11:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Support I found one typo, fixed it myself. The rest looks great.  Good job! --Jayron32| talk | contribs  05:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)