Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Current members of the Maryland House of Delegates
- 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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 12 days, 5 support, 0 oppose. Promote. --Crzycheetah 02:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
| Current Opinion | User |
|---|---|
| Support | Golbez |
| Support | Circeus |
| Support | Tompw |
| Support | Kalyan |
| maclean | |
| Support | Colin |
Self-nom after a couple weeks of work by myself and Marylandstater. I was hoping to be able to have an images column as in the Governors list, but the list as it currently stands has all of the public domain images wikipedia has on current Maryland delegates. The are 10 or so other delegates with inappropriate fair use images, and I didn't use those. Geraldk 18:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeNeeds a decent lead (WP:WIAFL 2a). Thins you could mention include:- There are districts which contain one, two or three members? Why the variance? Why the multi-member districts at all? (Which is unusual for state leglislative bodies)
- The image mentions districts/sub-districts - what's the difference?
- Is this the lower house or upper house? (Assuming a bicameral leglislature... or is the unicameral one?)
- When was the last/next election? Are memebrs subject to term limits?
- I've expanded the lead with information form the source already listed in the references section. Let me know what you think. Geraldk 19:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The lead is much imporved, well done! However, I must still
opposedue the excessive numbers of redlinks (27 out of 141, around one fifth). If the number of redlinks was less than ten, then I would re-consider. Tompw (talk) (review) 16:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]- We're down to 9 redlinks as of today. We should have 0 in the next two or three days. Geraldk 11:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Down to five now. Support Tompw (talk) (review) 17:33, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Down to two. Marylandstater 15:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- We're down to 9 redlinks as of today. We should have 0 in the next two or three days. Geraldk 11:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The lead is much imporved, well done! However, I must still
- I've expanded the lead with information form the source already listed in the references section. Let me know what you think. Geraldk 19:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - can I suggest a rename? For example, "List of Presidents of the United States", "List of Governors of Alabama", etc., all list *all* of the presidents, *all* of the governors. On the other hand, we have Current members of the United States Congress. So perhaps this article should be renamed Current members of the Maryland House of Delegates? --Golbez 13:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point. Will move. Geraldk 01:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd also like to see articles for everyone mentioned; having blacklinks is almost as bad as having redlinks. Even if they're stubs. --Golbez 13:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- MarylandStater and I are both adding more articles, and I've redlinked everything for now to facilitate that. Should take a few days. Geraldk 01:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd also like to see articles for everyone mentioned; having blacklinks is almost as bad as having redlinks. Even if they're stubs. --Golbez 13:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeMostly per Golbez' concerns. Also, I'd like the "nomination" note to specify that they were reelected after their nomination. Maybe the Canadian parliaments numbering system can be used there too? The current list is List of House members of the 39th Parliament of Canada. 17:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- I think I'd like to take Golbez's idea for now, if only because numbering it implies that there will be lists for every session of the House of Delegates, which may be a bit much since for a while they had one-year terms. Geraldk 01:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support new name and good faith that the redlinks will be resolved. --Golbez 03:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, a little concern about your move. You should have used the move button to keep previous history versions of the article instead of deleting content of the old one and creating new page. That will hinder further correction if other editors want to restore some pieces from the earlier versions.AW 01:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for pointing that out, I fixed the history. And ... criminy, the table is HTML, not wikitax. I'll ... I'll go fix it. :( --Golbez 18:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. --Golbez 18:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry. Still pretty new at this. Geraldk 01:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. --Golbez 18:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for pointing that out, I fixed the history. And ... criminy, the table is HTML, not wikitax. I'll ... I'll go fix it. :( --Golbez 18:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Assuming it can be kept up to date ;-) Circeus 21:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Funny you should say that. A state senator just resigned, and two different delegates are leading candidates for his seat. We'll just have to keep on it. :) Geraldk 01:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: I think the article is nicely done and has information in a format that meets FL requirements. --Kalyan 13:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeThe color scheme is useful but on the grayscale the {{Party shading/Democratic}} and {{Party shading/Republican}} templates used are nearly identical. [1] If printed in black and white or seen without color, the effect is lost. --maclean 07:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think this is a strong enough reason to oppose. The table has a column indicating Democrat/Republican, so the information is still available when printed or seen without colour. When I print it, all background shading is lost anyway, so I don't see how changing the colour shades will help. Colin°Talk 19:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I changed the shading of the {{Party shading/Democratic}} slightly so you can tell them apart now (slightly). I saw that printing removed the background color (I didn't know that). Isn't it helpful when people address their own concerns. --maclean 04:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think this is a strong enough reason to oppose. The table has a column indicating Democrat/Republican, so the information is still available when printed or seen without colour. When I print it, all background shading is lost anyway, so I don't see how changing the colour shades will help. Colin°Talk 19:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I'd like to see the districts sort numerically and the names sort (surname, forename), which I believe can be done using a template trick. Colin°Talk 19:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not so much a template trick, as using a div to hide the sortable text. I'm crazy enough that I think I'll go through and do that now. --Golbez 18:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. :) --Golbez 19:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not so much a template trick, as using a div to hide the sortable text. I'm crazy enough that I think I'll go through and do that now. --Golbez 18:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Great. Colin°Talk 22:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]