Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of Indiana state symbols/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured list removal 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 kept by IMatthew 12:44, 26 September 2009.

List of Indiana state symbols

 * Notified: User:Reywas92, WikiProject Indiana

I am nominating this for featured list removal because I believe it's not up to current standards. Specifically, -- Crzycheetah 04:26, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) The lead is a one choppy paragraph. It definitely needs to be improved.
 * 2) *"The U.S. state of Indiana has twelve official state symbols, as well as other designated official items" - So 12 official symbols along with other official "items", if those official items are not "state symbols" why are they listed here? It's confusing the heck out of me.
 * 3) *There's only one citation in the lead that lists some souvenirs and states nothing about the stuff mentioned in the lead.
 * 4) There's a huge amount of white space in the tables. At least one new column in the tables is needed.
 * 5) *It can be something like "Description", where the symbol is described in 2-3 sentences.
 * 6) * A separate column for references may be needed, as well.
 * 7) * The sections can be scrapped and a new column "type" can be added, where it can say "insignia", "species" etc
 * 8) There's a lack of references
 * 9) * All items should have an individual citation
 * 10) * The reference for the state food currently does not work.
 * 11) *Most of the references are from in.gov, but "Indiana Historical Bureau" and "State of Indiana" are listed as the publisher of that website.
 * 12) * PDF files need to be mentioned as such, use "format="


 * Keep. These things can easily be fixed, and references easily found. I am unable to get to all this today, but would be glad to this weekend. I do agree some work needs done. In regards to the official items, they are also state symbols, just not titled as such. &mdash;Charles Edward (Talk 18:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have removed (I think) all of the pdf references and updated them. In regards to publisher on IN.gov, the site has different sections with different publishers in each area. the history section is maintained by the IHB for example, so publishers will vary depending on the section of the site being references. &mdash;Charles Edward (Talk 15:22, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, first, I'm very surprised to see this here. This list was not on Scorpion's FL audit earlier this year, but the two other symbol lists, both passed before Indiana, are listed there but are not on FLRC. Most of these problems are very simple and will be taken care of soon. Reywas92 Talk  20:07, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I am surprised that this list isn't in the FL audit because all 3 symbol FLs look alike to me. I also thought to post these comments on the talk page first, but decided to create a formal review instead. About 2 months after this list was promoted, the Alabama list was nominated and rejected, see here. I like the current updates, except linking the titles of the refs. When you put a link as title, it won't take the readers to the specified websites.-- Crzycheetah 01:55, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I added it to the audit page. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

-- Crzycheetah 22:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Remaining issues
 * I still don't see which ones are the other official items.
 * Don't link the titles of the references. It's blocking the links to the websites.
 * Why the word "flag" in italics?
 * Since there's one table only, there's no need to force width.
 * Don't bold word inside the table.
 * Sorting for the "year" column does not work correctly. If you sort 3 or more times, you'll see what I mean.
 * Notes A and B need citations.
 * As for the in.gov website, I think the publisher is the State of Indiana. It publishes the works of its departments, such as Indiana Historical Bureau.

-- Crzycheetah 01:52, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * For your first point, I am not sure I understand your question. There are official emblems, all of which are listed in Title 1 Article 2, as stated. Which is the flag, seal, song, poem, etc. The "other official items" are those which are not emblems and not part of Title 1 Article 2, but are codified as official items elsewhere, and additionally the non-official state nickname. Short of listing each item in the lead and indicating whether it is an emblem or not an emblem, how do you propose we show the difference? I have changed the wording already to show that they are all symbols, but some are official emblems, while others are official things, just not emblems. Do you propose we remove those things which are not emblems, which would leave only six or so items on this list?
 * For the linking titles of references, are you referring to the links for Indiana Code? Both the external and internal link are working for me. WP:CITE also says to link to the website's (which can be construed as the work's) article within Wikipedia in addition to linking to the external source. By my interpretation, the MOS requires both to be linked.
 * Flag is italicized to put emphasis on the word. The article says the "state banner was renamed the state flag". The MOS recommends calling emphasis to a word in this type of situation, when the word itself is the point of the sentence. The point is the changing of the name (word), perhaps "banner" should also be italicized? (Manual of Style (text formatting))
 * Bolding removed
 * The sorting is correct for me when I sort it, "Holidays" being the only exception because there is three years within the same column. Is that what you are referring to? if so we can separate it into three columns easily enough.
 * Sources added for A and B
 * State of Indiana is a very broad term and the website is very large, and the different sections of the website are most likely managed by different bureaus, not by one centralized "website" group. The way they are tied to the bureaus, and especially the various pages for officials, its pretty obvious they are posting their own stuff. Either way, it seems to me more logical to refer to the bureau that created the data, and under who's name it is listed. The section of the website where it is at clearly indicates it belongs to the Indiana Historical Bureau and it is they who are making it available to the public. &mdash;Charles Edward (Talk 00:17, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was referring to the Indiana Code link. I don't know why, but the external link doesn't show for me. I'd suggest leaving the "title=" unlinked and add the "work=  Indiana Code".
 * As for sorting, did you try to sort the "year" column in descending order? When I sort it in descending order, "January 23, 2009" comes 14th out of 17 items. It looks weird to say the least.
 * Just so you know, your current refs # 8 and 23 link to the same webpage.
 * Comment: Thanks for helping out with this Charles! I don't think I like the new Type column. That implies that it is an actual term that may be sourced, but it's really an arbitrary way to sort them. I significantly prefer the sections. They are just general, self-explanatory groupings, not something integral or connected to the symbol that should be within the table. Honestly, I don't think any one of the columns really needs to be sortable, even the dates. Reywas92 Talk  00:02, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree with you. Fix it up however you think looks best, you are more experienced with lists than I. :) The type is rather arbitrary, I agree. I wast just attempting to accommodate the recommendation. &mdash;Charles Edward (Talk 02:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment What's left to be done here? Dabomb87 (talk) 19:29, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There are no descriptions for these symbols. Take a look at the Tennessee's list for an example.-- Cheetah  (talk)  20:20, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well do you want each one to have a separate subsection? I don't. Reywas92 Talk  21:04, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily. I' like to see it in the "symbols" column. Since that column isn't sortable anyways, A couple of sentences can be added next to each symbol. Something like "flag of Indiana - The stars in the flag represent this and that. The gold torch represent this." I just feel like this list isn't fully passing the "...it has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about the items" part in the 3a criterion.-- Cheetah  (talk)  22:03, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Descriptions have been added to all symbols. I believe all concerns have been taken care of. Reywas92 Talk  17:45, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Please try to have all remaining issues resolved by this coming Tuesday.  iMatthew  talk   at 13:22, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Thank you so much for the descriptions! The only description that was a little silly is the description of water. Was there a particular reason why water became official beverage? Other than that, I think this list is greatly improved.-- Cheetah  (talk)  19:23, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, I couldn't think of anything, and my source doesn't have much, so I just came up with that. Water really has no significance. Sorry for taking so long to improve them, and thank you for your support. Reywas92 Talk  19:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.