Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Municipalities of Baja California/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The list was withdrawn by The Rambling Man via FACBot (talk) 00:31, 10 April 2018 (UTC).

Municipalities of Baja California

 * Nominator(s): Mattximus (talk) 18:16, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

This is a very small list, but complete. I used my previous nominations, Municipalities of Colima and Municipalities of Aguascalientes, as templates for this one, keeping similar format and sourcing. I believe it meets featured list requirements but I am very open to any suggestions for improvement. This list is part of a greater goal of creating a featured quality list for all municipalities, adding to my previous 17 promoted lists of municipalities all using similar formatting, making them look more consistent and encyclopedic. Thanks again for helping me on this project. Mattximus (talk) 18:16, 10 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Support – Everything else looks good to me. Check out my comment above about the image. Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 19:42, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Does not comply with WP:LEAD. This is an article about municipalities but the first two sentences are solely about the state. The second paragraph should explain what a "municipal seat" is (e.g. explain why it is in this list of municipalities) and the "responsible for providing all the public services" is contradicted two sentences down which lists some of the public services the state is responsible for. Regarding the third paragraph, why split the population and area information between this and the first paragraph? Just have one paragraph that introduces and explains the relevance of this to the municipalities (e.g. why this is included in the list's scope). Also, "incorporation date" is included in the list but its relevance is not explained in the intro. And should probably either go with either sq. or 2 (I'm not sure, but I though mixing them was against some MOS somewhere). maclean (talk) 05:17, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi, do you intend to address Maclean25's comment? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:07, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've asked another user who has helped me improve the leads before and they will be assisting again, however they are on vacation at the moment but should return before this nom is closed. Some comments are not quite correct, for some reason the custom is to put km squared and square miles, not "miles squared". Mattximus (talk) 11:40, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * No worries. I've never said "miles squared" in my life, square miles is the usual term.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:54, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Alright the lead has been enhanced thanks to Cobblet. I think it's now much improved. The first paragraph reflects the context for municipalities (they are creations of the state), the second is powers of municipalities in general, and the third is highlights from individual municipalities in the table. It follows a general to specific format which is proper form for the lead. Explaining the significance for the incorporation date/municipal seat is tautological (eg. It's the date the municipality incorporated, and municipal seat is the seat of the municipal government). And I agree, I will keep it as square miles as per common usage. I'm now much more confident about the featured quality nature of the lead. Mattximus (talk) 23:46, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

are your concerns for this particular list now addressed? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:11, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * This is the edit made to the article. So, no, that, combined with a comment declining to follow the instructions of WP:LEAD to summarize the body of the article, per WP:FL? criteria #2, does not address my concerns. Mattximus, I did not ask you to define what incorporation and seats are, I asked you to put those dates and locations in context (for example, why is Playas de Rosarito incorporated so late? was it split off another municipality or was the area just never incorporated until then?; are those "internal subdivisions" what the "Municipal seat" are, a defined geographic area? or just a place where the 'municipal hall'(is that what it is called?) is located?). Regarding the sq. or 2 question, I found the relevant guide here so what is in the article is fine but we should probably stick to basing decisions on WP policies, rather than life experiences. And a FL delegate has instructed me that the FL leads are exempt from the MOS:FIRST and MOS:BEGIN parts of WP:LEAD, so that may also be struck from my above oppose. maclean (talk) 06:15, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I already asked you once to provide a link to that discussion with an FL delegate stating exemption from specific parts of MOS please? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:06, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * P.S. the convert template instruction is not a Wikipedia policy. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:07, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The link is here. That is how FL criteria #2 is being interpreted and implemented, so this nomination is fine and I have struck that part from my oppose. Don't worry about it. maclean (talk) 20:03, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No, I think that assumption is erroneous. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:12, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I can see what maclean is talking about now. Under the Spanish wiki site, there is a statement (unsourced) that says "the municipal seat is the population centre in which the administrative action of a town hall is exercised; it is also defined as the place where municipal public power is established, it has a capital function in that territory. " Is that what was needed? It still seems to be a bit tautological, but perhaps you can help with the wording to meet what you were looking for? Mattximus (talk) 00:27, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Mattximus left this question for your three weeks ago, do you intend to return to this review? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:46, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

are you prepared to find some more reviewers for this list? Maclean25 has failed to return; I will discount his opposition when wrapping things up, but there's not enough support right now for it to be promoted. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:07, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I feel this may be one of those close with lack of interest nominations. I have another more interesting list to nominate after this one that hopefully gets more attention. Mattximus (talk) 10:40, 6 April 2018 (UTC)


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