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 promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 23:31, 5 December 2016 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of municipalities in Maryland[edit]

Featured list candidates/List of incorporated places in Maryland/archive1

Toolbox
Analysis Citation bot External links

Nominator(s): Mattximus (talk) 13:12, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is my tenth list that I aim to bring up to Featured List. Thanks to all the people who helped out with those reviews so far. I have modelled this list off of the recently promoted List of cities and towns in Montana and so have taken any changes from that article into account here. I've incorporated templates into the tables which allows the list to be updated quickly after the next census and to make the list a bit more aesthetically pleasing. Please let me know if there is anything else that can be added to perfect this list. Thanks for your input. Mattximus (talk) 13:12, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Cheetah (talk)
Quick comment Your main reference is about Alabama.--Cheetah (talk) 19:03, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply] Yep, the annoying thing is that the website defaults to alphabetical listing (so Alabama is first). I can change it to [2] if you think that would be better? Mattximus (talk) 20:32, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply] I believe I've fixed the original. That link you've provided above was worse.--Cheetah (talk) 18:58, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply] Comments ~~First, the title: Shouldn't it be List of municipalities in Maryland?~~ Moved. ~~Is Maryland really located in the Southern US? I highly doubt that~~ Yes Maryland is really located in the Southern US. The source for all the data in this table is the United States Census, so I used the Southern United States as defined by the United States Census Bureau. Click on the link to see a map. ~~County should be County(ies) since there are 2 counties on some cells~~ Done ~~Since Baltimore doesn't have a county, it should have an emdash(?) or endash(?). Now, the word "None" is sorted under N as if it's a county name~~ Good catch, done.

Resolved comments from Cheetah (talk)

Quick comment Your main reference is about Alabama.--Cheetah (talk) 19:03, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, the annoying thing is that the website defaults to alphabetical listing (so Alabama is first). I can change it to [2] if you think that would be better? Mattximus (talk) 20:32, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I've fixed the original. That link you've provided above was worse.--Cheetah (talk) 18:58, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
- ~~First, the title: Shouldn't it be List of municipalities in Maryland?~~
  - Moved.
- ~~Is Maryland really located in the Southern US? I highly doubt that~~
  - Yes Maryland is really located in the Southern US. The source for all the data in this table is the United States Census, so I used the Southern United States as defined by the United States Census Bureau. Click on the link to see a map.
- ~~County should be County(ies) since there are 2 counties on some cells~~
  - Done
- ~~Since Baltimore doesn't have a county, it should have an emdash(?) or endash(?). Now, the word "None" is sorted under N as if it's a county name~~
  - Good catch, done.

Pending commennts
- The table is missing the caption and the col rows are missing the "!" per MOS:DTT
  - Added caption, and all the col have the ! per MOS... not sure if that is what you meant?
    - | scope="row" should be ! scope="row"
      - What is the purpose of this change? I just tried it and it messes up the entire formatting, the whole table becomes out of wack.

That's for screen readers scope="row" doesn't have any effect without that exclamation mark.

I see, thanks. However it doesn't resolve the issue of how the whole table becomes broken when you add the !. For example, the first three columns change background colour, they become centred which makes it hard to read, and they become bolded for some reason. It really looks very bad. All other lists passed with the current format, is it absolutely necessary to change?

- I don't think "population 2000" and "change" columns are necessary, but even if they are, I believe "population 2000" should come before "population 2010", to follow the chronological order.
  - It's more important to have the most up to date data first, and to see how it has changed over time. It's also the same format as other list of municipalities, so it would be weird to make Maryland different would it not? See List of municipalities in the Northwest Territories, List of municipalities in Nunavut, List of municipalities in Ontario, List of municipalities in Saskatchewan, List of municipalities in Yukon, List of cities and towns in Alabama, List of municipalities in New Brunswick, Cantons of Costa Rica, List of cities and towns in Montana, List of cities, towns, and villages in Mississippi, List of cities, towns, and villages in Louisiana, List of municipalities in Rhode Island, List of municipalities in New Mexico, List of cities and towns in South Carolina, List of municipalities in Wyoming, List of cities in Nevada
  - On a side note, the population 2000 will be removed when the next census comes out in a few years.
    - Most if not all of these lists are your own work, so they all have the style you follow. Those lists would flow a lot better if it were in a chronological order.
      - I really do disagree, the most important figure in the whole list would be the most up to date population figure available, and it should be first.

That's like saying History of Maryland should start with the events in the 21st century since it's the most recent information about the state.

Yes, the lead of the Maryland article should probably begin with it's present population and status. And it does, so this page is in agreement with the main state page.

- The Land area shouldn't have 2 subcolumns, it should look like the Density column
  - See previous comment, this is the style for all American states in the list above, it would be strange to make Maryland different from all the rest I would think.
    - Again, it's not all of them, but only the ones you worked on. List of municipalities in Florida, an FL, doesn't look lie that.
      - Sorry I just linked to the ones I worked on, but almost all others (even ones I didn't promote, for example List of municipalities in Alberta) follow this trend. I will get to the Florida one eventually to fix that one.

Right now, "Density" and "Land area" columns use two different formats, just pick one and stick with it. If you want two separate columns for mi and km, then both columns should have 2 subcolumns.

- "Incorporated" column should be added with the dates.
  - I often include that piece of information on these lists but I couldn't find a source for Maryland, do you have one? Also, it would make the column rather wide for smaller screens, so I'm not sure it is necessary.
    - It's more necessary than the population change. Here's the link, just click on the name of each city and you'll see the year incorporated.
      - I have to disagree that it's more important than population change, what is your logic on that? Knowing how a city changed over recent time tells you much more about a place than a date it was founded, which is honestly fairly trivial. Population trends are great proxies for all kinds of economic, and demographic inferences, but dates don't tell you anything about what the city is like now.

Dates don't tell you anything, huh? It shows whether that particular city has a history and how long that history is.

Actually this isn't true. The incorporation date rarely tells you how long the history is, some cities that were founded centuries ago incorporated in 2008. So by providing the date, you are actually misleading readers.

--Cheetah (talk) 06:39, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review, I've addressed all ~~but one~~ of your comments, ~~which I'm still working on.~~ Mattximus (talk) 13:45, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

"Maryland is divided into 23 counties and contains 157 incorporated municipalities consisting of cities, towns, and villages.[2] Maryland's incorporated municipalities cover only 4.4% of the state's land mass but" This seems unnecessarily wordy. I think you could shorten the second sentence to "Incorporated municipalities cover only 4.4% of the land but"

You are right, that is much better.

I found the explanation of the structure of government confusing. I take it that the municipalities are part of the counties, but have the right to decide how far they exercise self-government and whether they cede any powers to the county, but it would be helpful to spell this out - if it is correct.

I added this sentence: "Municipalities are the lowest tier administrative units in Maryland, and all except Baltimore are also subject to County administration.". Would that satisfy your confusion? If not I will also make it more clear!

"the City of Baltimore is more of a county than a city under state law since it exercises charter home rule similar to Maryland's nine charter counties" This is incomprehensible to anyone who does not understand the structure of US municipal government.

I think I made this more clear, is that so?

Note a. It looks very strange having a single note in 3 columns.

Nice catch, not sure why that was there...

Looks fine to me apart from these points. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:37, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review Dudley Miles! Mattximus (talk) 13:08, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support. A first rate list. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:29, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 22:27, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comments – Other than the several nit-picks below, this is a really nice list. Minor point, but the city, town, and village links could be moved up to the first paragraph, where the first appearance for the terms is located. Done, good catch. Similarly, the Baltimore link could be moved up to the second paragraph. While doing this, the second Baltimore link in the third paragraph should probably be removed altogether. I removed the second link, but I kept the first one since that's the most common place people will look to click, the first reference is kinda in passing if that makes sense. "and all except Baltimore are also subject to County administration." Is the capitalization of "County" correct? Oops, you are correct, fixed. Since the see also link has been incorporated into the article at the end of the lead, do we really need it in a separate section? Makes sense, I removed the separate section. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:15, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply] Thanks for your review! I've made all the changes, but the little one about Baltimore, I hope that's ok! Thanks again! Mattximus (talk) 01:25, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 22:27, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – Other than the several nit-picks below, this is a really nice list.

Minor point, but the city, town, and village links could be moved up to the first paragraph, where the first appearance for the terms is located.

Done, good catch.

Similarly, the Baltimore link could be moved up to the second paragraph. While doing this, the second Baltimore link in the third paragraph should probably be removed altogether.

I removed the second link, but I kept the first one since that's the most common place people will look to click, the first reference is kinda in passing if that makes sense.

"and all except Baltimore are also subject to County administration." Is the capitalization of "County" correct?

Oops, you are correct, fixed.

Since the see also link has been incorporated into the article at the end of the lead, do we really need it in a separate section?

Makes sense, I removed the separate section.

Giants2008 (Talk) 22:15, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review! I've made all the changes, but the little one about Baltimore, I hope that's ok! Thanks again! Mattximus (talk) 01:25, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Everything looks good now. Nice job, as usual. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:27, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:06, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comments "municipalities" is overlinked. Removed one, are there more? As is "incorporated" which coincidentally has two different targets... Good catch, fixed "an Independent city," is there any reason that Independent is capitalised here? Nope, that was a typo D.C. linked twice in the gallery (both times to a redirect...) Fixed, another good catch Density in the table should be explicitly "Population density". Makes sense, done. Not sure that one decimal place accuracy is required for this metric either. Since the area measurement is to 2 decimal places, using 1 is safe of any rounding errors. Pretty minor issues. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:50, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply] Thanks The Rambling Man for your review! Mattximus (talk) 21:38, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:06, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

"municipalities" is overlinked.
Removed one, are there more?
As is "incorporated" which coincidentally has two different targets...
Good catch, fixed
"an Independent city," is there any reason that Independent is capitalised here?
Nope, that was a typo
D.C. linked twice in the gallery (both times to a redirect...)
Fixed, another good catch
Density in the table should be explicitly "Population density".
Makes sense, done.
Not sure that one decimal place accuracy is required for this metric either.
Since the area measurement is to 2 decimal places, using 1 is safe of any rounding errors.

Pretty minor issues. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:50, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks The Rambling Man for your review! Mattximus (talk) 21:38, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support my minor concerns addressed, good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:06, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source Review

There's only 3 online sources, so I checked them. Spotchecks and formatting passed. Promoting. --Pres N 12:32, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the ((featured list candidates)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

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