Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/United States congressional delegations from Massachusetts/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 Crisco 1492 23:05, 31 October 2013 [1].

United States congressional delegations from Massachusetts

Featured list candidates/United States congressional delegations from Massachusetts/archive1

Nominator(s): Designate (talk) 01:10, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think this list is good for FL. —Designate (talk) 01:10, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose looks pretty horrific to me and takes a day-and-a-half to load.

Tables need to meet WP:ACCESS for row and col scopes.
A key is needed, what is (F), (Pro-Admin) etc?
I would suppress the Table of Contents. Too many arbitrary sections.
"1928–1971" etc check WP:YEAR.
I see not one single in-line reference. How odd.

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:23, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think all the House delegations should be lumped into one table, as in United States congressional delegations from Iowa, or is it better to have them split up into sections so there's less left-to-right scrolling? —Designate (talk) 00:52, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I disagree that the sections are "arbitrary": they are split up by redistricting, which is the obvious way to section the article (if we are to have sections). Finding out Massachusetts' delegation in 1865, for example, is an entirely plausible use case for this article and I see no reason to suppress the TOC. —Designate (talk) 23:28, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Make the sections just like on United States congressional delegations from Utah and United States congressional delegations from Indiana, keep the TOC, and I think you'll be fine. Rejectwater (talk) 23:43, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't object to making big changes, but combining all these tables is a lot of work without any clear benefit. What's the advantage of having one huge table instead of 20 small ones? You think we're better off without linking to the Census and pointing out the changes in each redistricting? District 8 in 1813 has nothing to do with District 8 in 1913, so it's not like there's any continuity to preserve. What you propose would 1) remove a lot of useful information and 2) would crush the later tables into half the existing width. What am I getting for that? I don't think the two existing FLs are automatically the standard just because they were nominated already. —Designate (talk) 00:20, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As you have said, it's a proposal. In answer to your questions/comments: a)No more arbitrary sections. Easier to to read. Consolidates things like links to districts which are currently repeated over and over again. b)Yes. The article isn't about the Census and/or redistricting. A few sentences can explain those issues well enough for the purposes of this list. c)Massachusetts's 8th congressional district called and it would like to have a word. 1) The links to the census are not necessary. I don't see what other information would be lost. 2) I don't see width as necessarily being an issue. d) Yet we know that they are written in an accepted form and what we have here has already been described as "horrific". Rejectwater (talk) 09:15, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I accept that reasoning. I want to keep a clear division to indicate redistricting, though. This is an article on Congressional delegations—redistricting is inextricable from the topic. I don't want to imply that the 4th district in 1993 was the 4th district in 2013 and that the 10th district just disappeared into the sea. Part of the reason Congressmen resign (e.g. Barney Frank) is because the shape of their district got out of their control. Even if we don't go into those kinds of interpretations, we need to make the data available so other people can. —Designate (talk) 14:44, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

No image alts. See WP:ALT.
Tiny lead and no other prose for a topic that dates back over 200 years.
Check out United States congressional delegations from Utah and United States congressional delegations from Indiana, both Featured Lists, for an idea of the quality level you are shooting for. Indiana is probably a better example due to a similar number of districts. Note that they were promoted three and four years ago and keep in mind standards evolve over time.
Tables have to comply with MOS:DTT (this is basically the same as TRM's comment about ACCESS)
Concur also on TRM comment about the references. See WP:CITE and WP:V. Regards, Rejectwater (talk) 23:32, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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