Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Governors of Arkansas/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 not promoted by Pres N 21:31, 6 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]

List of Governors of Arkansas

Featured list removal candidates/List of Governors of Arkansas/archive1

Nominator(s): Golbez (talk) 06:47, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This was a featured list from September 2007 to this May, when it was rightly delisted for having an old format and poorly sourced information. After getting back into the governor list groove, I've taken the time to upgrade the format to include a term column (much superior to the previous style of percentages to indicate shared terms) and a portrait column (since we now have enough portraits to fill most of it out).

I also was bold and removed the living governor list (I can speak only for myself but I see this as excessive trivia that has no real world import) and the 'other high offices held' list, which I found to be difficult to maintain. It requires a bit of clunky prose, and ends up being a bit subjective. My personal rules were: Congressional offices, high executive offices, cabinet, district court or higher appointments, and ambassadorships. However, this would leave out certain things that people would be perhaps better known for, like commissioner of baseball or mayor of large cities. I will argue against replacing the living governor list, but I can easily go along with replacing the other high office list if people think it makes sense to keep.

Finally, the reason this was delisted: Data. Turns out that the best available sources on when Arkansas' governors took office disagree by a day or two for much of the state's history, so extensive verification and logical thinking had to be done to come up with the list as it is. Everything should be properly sourced now. Also, I discovered a new governor, Thomas Fletcher, which is not a sentence that often makes sense, but here we are.

It's been years since I've brought a list to FLC, so I expect my old standards are lacking, so I look forward to learning what new hotness I need to employ in this. Thank you! --Golbez (talk) 06:47, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I should point out that I'm also kind of doing this as a referendum; a new format has been brought to List of Governors of California and it includes things such as previous job, number of days in office, and the governor's birth and death dates and age. I don't like these; in order, they are subjective and not that useful (for Richard Nixon for president, would we say 'none'?); excessive trivia (it might just be me but I honestly don't understand why anyone cares); and irrelevant (their dates have nothing to do with this list. if someone wants to know them, the article is right there. including them is akin to including their wife's name, or place of birth). I seek discussion on not just this list, but it in comparison to that new format; if this list gets featured as it is then I'll work with the creator of the CA format to adapt it, and if this list doesn't get featured because of the other format being preferred, then I guess I'll stop fighting it. [And if this is absolutely the wrong place to have this discussion, please tell me where to take it. :)] --Golbez (talk) 03:18, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Object: The party is indicated with color only, which is not accessible to blind or color-blind people. If you decide to add a visible R/D, make sure it has good contrast with the background, for example, a black letter R or letter D as text and a pale red or pale blue background. Or you could add a party column, the same as the California list. Thisisnotatest (talk) 06:52, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- There... is a party column? --Golbez (talk) 14:03, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Golbez, I believe they mean the red that indicates Republican and the blue that indicates Democrat. — Maile (talk) 18:59, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know what they mean. And there is a party column. That's my confusion. It's right there. Reads "Democratic" and sometimes "Republican". --Golbez (talk) 20:09, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For the record, those tiny "party shading" (half-)columns are standard practice at U.S. politics (e.g. Pres. and Governor) lists, and at some of the Canadian elections lists too, and I really dislike them strongly. It should either be a full separate column, with written "R" & "D" (or "Rep" & "Dem") labels, or we really shouldn't bother! So this isn't just a problem with this Arkansas Governor article, but with U.S. politics lists articles in general. (I think someone tried to fix this at List of Presidents of the United States a few months back, but got voted down IIRC...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:58, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is a column. With labels. I'm very confused how people aren't seeing this. The color bars are simply for added illustration (and shouldn't have text over them). That way it's easy to see party control over time without having to scan for words. It also makes it easier to see Lt Governor parties, who don't get their own party column. --Golbez (talk) 20:09, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What I mean by this is that it's not a separate 'Party' column with "R" & "D" labels included right there in the cells. I find the way this has been handled at the U.S. politics lists to be highly... inelegant. I understand that they've been this way forever, and there's a lot of inertial support for them, but I strongly prefer the way this is handled at, say, List of Alberta general elections or List of post-confederation Prince Edward Island general elections. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:15, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The rows used to be entirely colored. Then we went to the color bars. I find that more elegant than coloring in the party column, I don't like (and in many cases it runs afoul of accessibility) having text over color. I look at those articles and I want to split the winner column into one with a color bar and the party name. --Golbez (talk) 20:20, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to me like it might be the best ultimate "solution" for these articles – move the party-colors "half-column" over to be with the 'Party' label column, rather that the awkward way it's currently included with the officeholder's name. But I'd better drop this here, as this discussion has less to do with this specific FL nominee, than it does with a discussion that maybe should be held about the entire "suite" of these articles... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:31, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see what you mean!... OK, what I'm saying is I'd prefer that the party "colors" should be moved over to that column. (Something would have to be worked out for the Lt. Gov. column too...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:17, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well that is certainly possible, though then we have the odd construction of color/party/color/name (due to lieutenant governor). Putting the color bar on the left gives people a quick look at the party before scanning to the middle of the table, and balances the color bars out. --Golbez (talk) 20:20, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't find the colour an issue for the main Governors, as the party is described. However, for the Lt. Governors, if a screen reader user was accessing the list, how would they know what party each Lt Governor was? If the two always aligned, it wouldn't be a problem, but as they differ at times, it is. Harrias ^talk 16:54, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

"Orval Faubus served the longest term as state governor, being elected six times to serve twelve years. Bill Clinton, elected five times over two distinct terms, fell only one month short of twelve years." I was puzzled at the six and five terms. I think you need to leave it out or explain that the term was changed to four years during Clinton's governorship.
"so there was a single line of governors, though as the state fell to Union forces there was a loyalist government put in place with an insignificant Confederate government in exile." This seems to me confusing. Perhaps something like "but when the state fell to Union forces in 1863, the Confederate governor maintained an ineffective government in exile until 1865, while a Union governor was appointed in 1864."
"Murphy was elected provisional governor by a loyalist government set up after Union control of the state was established". This is a bit vague. Did the US President appoint a government which chose the governor until the state was re-admitted to the Union in 1868?
A fine list. Just a few minor points. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:04, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's been 2 months without sufficient support, so closing this nomination as not passed. --Pres N 21:29, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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