Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Governors of Arizona

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 User:Scorpion0422 00:19, 26 November 2008 [1].

List of Governors of Arizona

Previous FLC

Still think it's one of the best works I have here, and I think many who opposed last time simply didn't come back around to address my responses. --Golbez (talk) 23:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I still do not like the use of fractions in the number of terms served. I also prefer darker colors than the pastel to represent political parties. See
  Indiana gubernatorial election, 2008#Results for better colors (within Template:Election box candidate with party link). Reywas92^Talk 20:22, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I like those colors better; the pastels are useful for having text over them, but since this doesn't have that anymore, the bolder colors can be used. Do you suggest something like
    List of Presidents of the United States' showing the term number instead of the fractions? --Golbez (talk) 02:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Keep in mind that doing that will render the table unsortable, FYI. --Golbez (talk) 02:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I did a "proof of concept" by listing each term, rather than listing how many terms, and IMO it was quite ugly and clunky (And required extensive use of rowspans, which will confuse screen readers and possibly regular readers) What's wrong with the fractions? --Golbez (talk) 22:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - In the state governors table, the sort function does not work properly for the governor's name or for the "Took office" and "Party" columns. (I wish I could see why it's not working, but the coding looks fine...) --Orlady (talk) 19:57, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow, all sorting except for Left Office is broken. That's a head scratcher, I'll bring it up with the tech folks. It was working a few weeks ago when I implemented it, that's for sure. --Golbez (talk) 21:38, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Never mind, I found the problem; "colspan=2" in the Name section, to include the party bar, confused the sorting. It's fixable, but ugly. --Golbez (talk) 21:39, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Congratulations for finding the source of problem. I don't think the solution is ugly -- it looks fine to me. --Orlady (talk) 22:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks for pointing it out. I still prefer having the color bar flush with the name. ;) --Golbez (talk) 22:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by SatyrTN

• Still surprised not to see the flag anywhere
  • Why do we need a picture of the flag? We have one of the governor. Does every article regarding the state or government of Arizona require a flag, regardless of its relevance? --Golbez (talk) 01:31, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Having the notes section smack dab in the middle of the list violates
  WP:LAY#Standard appendices
  . I understand that other FLs have this issue, too, but IMO that's inappropriate.
  • I'll examine changing this. --Golbez (talk) 01:31, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done, but I still don't like it. :P --Golbez (talk) 17:25, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• My opinion (and this isn't a show-stopper at all) is that pictures to the right of tables looks great, but having them to the right of tables and text doesn't work. But that's simply opinion.
  • I'll toy with this. --Golbez (talk) 17:25, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support: The MOS:SECTIONS thing bugs the heck out of me, but major concerns have been dealt with, and I seem to be in the minority on that point, so I'll throw in a weak support. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 21:25, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. --Golbez (talk) 01:31, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose. Assuming a half term is shorter than a whole one, the terms does not sort poroperly. Sorting gave me 1,2,3, then the fractions.Yobmod (talk) 15:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Fixed. --Golbez (talk) 17:22, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

and struck my oppose. Guess i'll weak support now (weak cosi've only done a cursory review).Yobmod (talk) 18:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the notes that make specific claims (eg: he dies, he took job elsewhere) are cited, i'll strike the weak too (not becaue they are controversial, but for making finding the info easier).

Everything that is not easily visible in the primary resources (mainly, the NGA link) is specifically cited. If I had a cite for every "he died", then there would be a lot of duplicate "he died"s. Now, if the primary sources contradicted, I would of course make a note of that and cite things - but in this case, they don't. --Golbez (talk) 16:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason for bolding parts of those 3 citations? It makes them stick out a lot, can they not be italic or normal text?Yobmod (talk) 10:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not my fault; blame the people who designed {{cite encyclopedia}}. --Golbez (talk) 16:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also agree that a flag would look good (not necessarily instead of lead image, but in addition, if there is room). Also, is there not a footer navbox for arizona or arizona politics? 2 footers is not too much to have at all, and would autocolapse themselves, and would certainly make it easier for interested readers.Yobmod (talk) 10:31, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still see no place for a flag that would look any better than "We just threw a flag on this article without regard for context". As for a footer, I agree; I've added an AZ footer. It's not great, but until there's an AZ government footer, it works. --Golbez (talk) 16:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from

talk · contribs

)

Alright I went ahead and fixed these myself. They were broken for reasons that might not be obvious at first glance.

talk) 20:43, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

• I removed periods from notes that were non-sentences.
• I found a few "state secretary of state" and shortened them to "state secretary". I hope that's still correct.
  • I changed them to "secretary of state", since I don't need to specify it was the state one. --Golbez (talk) 07:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Besides the above, though...
• The page provides a useful history lesson, but it needs references.
• The "Most of the area that became Arizona was originally part of the Mexican territory of Alta California." paragraph
  • I trimmed the first sentence ; part of it may or may not have been part of Santa Fe de Nuevo Mexico, so rather than complicate matters, I just said it was part of Mexico. Graf sourced.
• "Arizona Territory was formed on February 24, 1863" paragraph
  • Sourced.
• For the "for" note below the list, perhaps use this instead, and maybe it should be placed at the top of the page instead: {{for|governors of the same region before the Arizona Territory was formed|List of Governors of New Mexico}}
  • That would be a bad place, because it offers no context. Hatnotes need to disambiguate based directly on the name of the article; for example, if there were an article on Arizona Territory's governors, then a hatnote might be useful. But in that case, a certain context is required to let the reader know *why* we care about New Mexico Territory's governors. Also, it's an effort to keep all of these lists looking similar; for something like Colorado, we'd have some very crowded hatnotes (Governors of Kansas, New Mexico, Utah, Idaho, and Texas). --Golbez (talk) 07:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay Support

talk) 15:42, 25 November 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.