Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of heads of state of Argentina/archive1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 MBelgrano 11:39, 9 November 2010 [1].
List of heads of state of Argentina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Nominator(s): MBelgrano (talk) 03:00, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because it's one of the most important lists within the Argentine topics I work with. I have checked all the entries with a related book and adressed the points mentioned at a recent peer review. I think that now it should be ready, or at least if there are further final points to adress that I haven't noticed they should be small and easy to fix. MBelgrano (talk) 03:00, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - I believe theres a long list of issues with this just ones I can point to off the top of my head, inconsistent dates, the fact the key (or affiliations as its noted in the article) comes at the end of the article not to mention there is inconsistency in applying these abbreviations. There's a ton of unreferenced information in the Lead. The table for the Triumvirates is extremely confusing to the average reader also and I'd be interested to knowing why it isn't formatted like the other tables. The tables also do not have the correct sort facilities. The Retrieval dates for the references also fail WP:DATE. Afro (Talk) 13:08, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The table for the triumvirates is formated that way because, unlike the other tables, they were triumvirates, composed of 3 heads of state working at the same time (which is explained at the lead). Horizontal order for the members of a same triumvirate, vertical for first and second triumvirate. Each file has actually four members because in each one a member left it and was replaced. I though that with the notes it would be undertood, and it would be less misleading than making 4 files of 3 members, because history books talk about 2 triumvirates, not 4. Anyway, I'm open to other suggestions. I didn't thought the lead would need much references because that's mostly trivial information, but I included more footnotes as required. I fixed the access dates as requested as well. I can improve the sort feature if needed, but is it really needed? It's a list of heads of state, I didn't thought there could be an interest to read it in another order than the cronological one. MBelgrano (talk) 03:26, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The Sort feature is unquestionably in need of sorting as proved by the Presidents table, after all theres no point in having these if they can't sort, its also required they work by the Criteria. I'd also like to bring up a question as to why the start and end dates aren't separated like I've seen in other articles. The Triumvirates needs to be sorted either way as it seems out of place and the sorting function is very confusing for the table. You've fixed all but one access date. I do assume the lead needs to be referenced better if I am judging WP:LEADCITE correctly. Afro (Talk) 04:49, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The table for the triumvirates is formated that way because, unlike the other tables, they were triumvirates, composed of 3 heads of state working at the same time (which is explained at the lead). Horizontal order for the members of a same triumvirate, vertical for first and second triumvirate. Each file has actually four members because in each one a member left it and was replaced. I though that with the notes it would be undertood, and it would be less misleading than making 4 files of 3 members, because history books talk about 2 triumvirates, not 4. Anyway, I'm open to other suggestions. I didn't thought the lead would need much references because that's mostly trivial information, but I included more footnotes as required. I fixed the access dates as requested as well. I can improve the sort feature if needed, but is it really needed? It's a list of heads of state, I didn't thought there could be an interest to read it in another order than the cronological one. MBelgrano (talk) 03:26, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've fixed the triumvirate section; to make it more accessible (and the rest of the article)..... Is it good enough? --TIAYN (talk) 13:17, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose
- Don't just write "Interim" and "Resigned" all the time; write a sentence or two on why he resigned or how he became an "Interim" leader...
- Most of the article is left unreferenced...
- There are more, but these two will probably take some time.. --TIAYN (talk) 13:21, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The thing is that this is a list, not a summary of history. I made a specific efford to remove or reduce all the info that goes to other divergent topics, and keep just those related to the nature or duration of the mandate in the shortest ways possible. Sometimes this simply wasn't possible (such as with the strange system of the 2003 elections), but that was the system I followed. Consider that you are asking for something like es:Gobernantes de Argentina, which lost featured status for this very reason, and I don't think this project has different ideas about this either. As for the references, I followed the system of referencing material "challenged or likely to be challenged", comments like saying that Duhalde resigned seemed very trivial to justify references. But if it's needed to reference each entry of the table, I can easily give the pages MBelgrano (talk) 13:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You shouldn't be concerned about what happens on other projects first off this isn't a good reason to leave out information on the given subject because another project decided it wasn't warranted 3 years ago, looking over the discussion page for the demotion there also seems to of been concerns regarding the POV which may of had more to do with it. Afro (Talk) 14:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well you can, see List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom... Either write full-sentenced or remove those one word tags which are all over the article.. They are wasting valuable space, if you are going to have space for it, use it.. If you don't want to have tags, take a look at the List of Presidents of Venezuela. Spanish wiki doesn't work the same way as English wiki, just as Norwegian wiki doesn't work the same way as Russian wiki! --TIAYN (talk) 14:17, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The thing is that this is a list, not a summary of history. I made a specific efford to remove or reduce all the info that goes to other divergent topics, and keep just those related to the nature or duration of the mandate in the shortest ways possible. Sometimes this simply wasn't possible (such as with the strange system of the 2003 elections), but that was the system I followed. Consider that you are asking for something like es:Gobernantes de Argentina, which lost featured status for this very reason, and I don't think this project has different ideas about this either. As for the references, I followed the system of referencing material "challenged or likely to be challenged", comments like saying that Duhalde resigned seemed very trivial to justify references. But if it's needed to reference each entry of the table, I can easily give the pages MBelgrano (talk) 13:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Very well, this may take a while, so we can close this nomination for the time being. I would have worked on this topics before nominating if they were mentioned in the peer review, but there's no rush, and I don't want to bottleneck the featured lists nominations with an incomplete list. Just some final clarifications. Do I reference each entry, even if the content is trivial? Even if I expand from one-word sentences, do I keep the policy of mentioning just the info related to the mandate of do I give more lengthy explanations on who was each ruler and the things he did? MBelgrano (talk) 14:46, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, you will have to reference the text in each entry, even if the content is trivial. In my opinion you should reference everything, just as I have done to the List of leaders of the Soviet Union, I don't think this is a 'must do thing' however. Just write to to four sentences about the country under each ruler; try to include the most important events. --TIAYN (talk) 15:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Tips, take a look at other FL articles before re-nominating this list again. --TIAYN (talk) 15:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Drawing mostly from the work I've done on U.S. governor lists:
- The Affiliations box is huge and should not be the first thing people see. Furthermore, I'm not sure it's necessary; I can't think of any U.S. politician list that included a list of every political party on it. If people want to know more about the affiliations, we have links. At the very least, it needs to be collapsed, but I don't see why it needs to be here to begin with.
- There's no reason to stack dates and parties. Put them next to each other. Especially since you switch back and forth between formats, there's no justification for that.
- Don't force image size; use upright.
- IMO, if the notes are entirely how they entered and left office then perhaps they can be tagged to the dates as footnotes.
- Not sure we need their lifetime in the table either. Again, they have links. That's not immediately relevant to the matter at hand.
- --Golbez (talk) 21:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.