Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of districts of India/archive3

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 removed by User:Matthewedwards 23:37, 24 August 2008 [1].

List of districts of India

FLR1 FLR2

Sadly, this is a third nomination for removal. There are several problems with this list, though.

  1. The Lead is really short. It should at least talk about history a little. Something like when India decided to divide its states into districts.
  2. The lead currently is unsourced.
  3. The Officials section is unsourced, as well.
  4. Tables should look like a Wikipedia table, i.e. use class=wikitable or even better use class=wikitable sortable.
  5. The "Area" column should list the sq mi figures, as well. I think the {{convert}} template should be used here.
  6. Headquarter(s) or Headquarters?
  7. Many links get redirected to a totally different spelling. Maybe, they should be linked to an official spelling?
  8. Some links go to disamg. pages.
  9. Why Puducherry doesn't have any headquarters?
  10. I couldn't figure out what info was taken from the "Official directory of all Indian districts" link.
  11. The "statoids.com" link doesn't have density listed. Where did the density figures come from?

--Crzycheetah 20:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

density comes from population/area. silly question, really! --GDibyendu (talk) 04:35, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you verify that they're correct? There's no references that list those density figures. It violates WP:OR right now.--Crzycheetah 04:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to verify, you can pickup a few random rows and verify. I don't think using a simple formula like this can be WP:OR. --GDibyendu (talk) 04:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not too sure about WP:OR, but just to be safe, we should probably state that formula somewhere.--Crzycheetah 06:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – not a FLRC IMO, easily fixed in an hours work

  1. I've boosted the lead by merging sections. Also added a few inline citations
  2. SQ MI is optional. MOS:CONVERSIONS does not make it mandatory to have it, so does not fall under a FLRC. Although if anyone has the time and energy, they are most welcome to provide two extra columns for misup2; density.
  3. Table colours are ok. See WP:FLC. GDibyendu has added the sorting feature and also corrected Headquarters
  4. Puducherry and Mumbai City do not have any HQ as they are city districts.
  5. Links that go to a dab page or redirect page are not a problem as long as they reach the intended article. It would be an inhuman effort to constantly monitor 1500 links to a page to see if they have been dabbed. Maybe a bot could be commissioned for this purposes. But it is not a FAC or FLC criteria.
  6. Density is NOT OR. Density has an accepted formula that is population per area. Please see Wikipedia:Citing sources#When to cite. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Lead still lacks info on the history of districts. When they were created? why? Currently, fails criterion #3.
  2. MOS:CONVERSIONS states that "metric units and US or imperial units should generally be provided". It says generally because there are some exceptions, but none of the exceptions apply to this list. Currently, fails criterion #5.
  3. Any reason why there's a blue background in tables? It does not look appealing at all. Currently, fails criterion #6.
  4. This page does not explain why Puducherry doesn't have any headquarters. Currently, fails criterion #3.
  5. That's the problem, these pages do not reach the intended pages. They're not helpful at all. Currently, fails criterion #4.
  6. That accepted formula should be mentioned in this page.
--Crzycheetah 09:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. There is not much on the history of districts. I added a one liner on the earliest law I could find.
  2. Generally does not mean compulsorily. Only listing the metric units are perfectly acceptable due to widespread usage. I am not against having imperial units, but absence of imperial units does not violate the FA/FL criteria. If someone would be willing to add that column, please go ahead. NOT DONE
  3. #3 allows suitable use of colour. What is not appealing to you is appealing to someone else. This is a personal choice, so am not changing it as the criteria allows us to use any (non gharish looking) colour.
  4. Puducherry is now explained NOT DONE
  5. Again a majority of links are working. A bot needs to check on the links. If you can provide an instance of bad link, we can look into it. No featured list criteria if the link is redirected. NOT DONE
  6. It would be ludicrous to list the "accepted formula", but I've added the description of the column headers that should satisfy your objection. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. OK
  2. It does violate the criteria as I already mentioned above.
  3. All Wikipedia tables have gray background and use other colors used to indicate something. This isn't about personal preference; this is about Wikipedia's preference.
  4. OK
  5. Try this
  6. OK
--Crzycheetah 09:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have taken care of the dab fixes. --GDibyendu (talk) 09:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to check out WP:R2D. No policy is violated as per that link. =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did and I noticed that, per that link, the redirects in this list should be fixed. See the second exception.--Crzycheetah 06:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, this is not enough for deletion. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Alternatives_to_deletion Lihaas (talk) 05:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I highly doubt anyone wants to delete this page.--Crzycheetah 06:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Criterion 2: Lead. It has an engaging lead section that introduces the subject, and defines the scope and inclusion criteria of the list."
    • The lead is manifestly inadequate in this respect. I'm left not knowing who appoints or elects whom, whether districts are locally managed rather like counties or councils in other countries, and what services and governance they're responsible for. Can they be sacked by the central or state government? The two little paragraphs there at the moment are totally inadequate. Tony (talk) 06:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cr 6, visual appeal: the second and third columns are HUGE, leaving acres of white space and making the table more horizontal than necessary; those with small monitors suffer. Tony (talk) 06:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comments I have decided to archive this nomination as delist. Not that I necessarily have to, but here are – some, not all of – my reasons.

  • Tony's comments have not been addressed/rebutted or even acknowledged
  • MOS:CONVERSIONS is a guideline, and doesn't have to be followed per se, however, WP:FL? does say that a FL should "comprehensively" cover the scope. Converting measurements ensures that the list is comprehensive, and provides context and understanding to users who are unfamiliar with the metric system.
  • The majority of the tables are wikitables, but the first two are not. This promotes inconsistencies within articles, as well as using colour to make things pretty, rather than to identify something specific.
  • Besides Tony's comment about whitespace in the talbes, the huge contents table also takes up a lot of unnecessary whitespace, and while it is collapsable, is not by default. An alternative would be {{AlphanumericTOC}}
  • DABs should be redirected to the correct page (WP:DAB and MOS:DAB). Why make a reader make two clicks to get to the page when one is better? We shouldn't rely on a bot (which may or may not exist) to come around to the page to make these changes, editors should be doing it.

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 23:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_removal_candidates/List_of_districts_of_India/archive3&oldid=1145619930"