Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Chancellors of Germany/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates
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 Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:31, 25 June 2018 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of Chancellors of Germany edit

List of Chancellors of Germany (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): BegbertBiggs (talk) - de 21:22, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This has been a good and comprehensive list for a while. I have improved the lead and layout, made copyedits and added a number of references; now I believe it meets the criteria. BegbertBiggs (talk) - de 21:22, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Updated: I have made a change replacing each Chancellors's government coalition with their Vice Chancellors. Feel free to give feedback about which option is better. BegbertBiggs (talk) 15:39, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments. I'm not familiar necessarily with Chancellors, but I've done a lot of work on U.S. governors so that informs some of how I see this:
    • Is having the date be smaller than the year a style used elsewhere?
    • Is the numbering of reichstags/elections official, or artificial based on just that "this was the 11th election" or what not? I would err away from putting a number there unless it's official (like how in the U.S. we refer to the "112th congress") I see that the Bundestags appear to be officially numbered, but are the Reichstags?
      • I'm not sure whether the numbering was contemporary or applied later by historians, but it is widely used. — 17:21, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
        • Fair enough.
    • I don't understand why Cabinet has two columns in the Revolutionary Period table.
      • Changed to be more consistent with the other tables. — 17:21, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
    • Should we get a translation of Ebert's position?
      • It's translated in the section lead (Chairman of the Council of the People's Deputies), highlighted it. — 17:21, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
    • What changed in 1919 that the position was renamed? from Reichsministerpräsident to Reichskanzler?
      • The Weimar Constitution formally (re)introduced the title Reichskanzler. Explained it in a footnote. — 17:21, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
    • I'm not a fan of the large inline notes about the person, rather than about the office, and the fact that they only appear after 1933. My feeling on these lists is they should be purely about: What is the office; how do you get into the office; who was in the office; and if it changed out-of-schedule, why. So I don't like Kiesinger's or Schröder's notes, it has nothing to do with any of those, and especially not Erhard's, but Scheel's makes sense because it's about a change in the office.
      • Removed these inline comments from the FRG table, and put Scheel's into a footnote. Edited the ones from the Nazi period to focus more on the office rather than general historical context. — 23:23, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
    • Getting rid of the less relevant notes, and moving the necessary ones to footnotes, would also allow those tables to be sortable.
      • Done for FRG. The Nazi table is too small to benefit from sorting, I feel. — 23:23, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
        • That's fair; it's not like there was much to that period other than Hitler for 12 years, and then three weeks post-Hitler.
    • Some note about the period between 1945 and 1949 needs to be included - no mention of the fact that the office appears to not have existed for four years is made.
      • Addressed it in article lead. — 17:21, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
        • Thanks!
    • Why is the first election under Kohl "9 (....)" instead of, "9 (1980)"? Same for the others. I understand if you're saying it's the same, but why not just ... put the same? You're keeping the number, why not the year? (Getting rid of the notes and rowspanning the elections could help with this)
      • Fixed. — 23:23, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
    • Now to some less important things that are probably peeves to me alone, and won't be counted against you:
      • I don't like the lifespan. It's extraneous info.
        • I don't have a strong opinion on that. — 17:21, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
      • Instead of having 5 rows for Kohl's time in office, for example, you only need one. Put small dates in the cabinet cells, maybe? I dunno. Parliamentary systems are arcane to my American sensibilities.
        • I believe the reason is that the Chancellor is newly elected and sworn in for each term. Can be shifted to the cabinet cells if there's enough space. 17:21, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
          • Nah, that explanation makes sense. Again, I'm generally unfamiliar with parliamentary systems.
      • Short vacancies in the Vice Chancellor office could probably be noted; for example, between von Bethmann-Hollweg and von Delbruck.
        • I don't think it's noteworthy if it's just a few days. In that particular case for example it wasn't intentionally left vacant, it just took a week for Bethman-Hollweg to succeed as Chancellor and form his own cabinet. — 17:21, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
          • Fair enough.
  • --Golbez (talk) 16:03, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Addressed some of your concerns. I'll deal with the rest later, specifically the ones about the Federal Republic table. BegbertBiggs (talk) 17:21, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Golbez: Thank you for your comments. I have responded to them all. BegbertBiggs (talk) 23:23, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support; I was going to say "i'm not a fan of the duration column" but then remembered - oh right, parliamentary. German elections aren't exactly on the strict four-year schedule we have in the U.S. --Golbez (talk) 16:28, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Cmnts
  • 2nd and 3rd table have cabinet and vice exchanged
    • I don't understand what you mean. BegbertBiggs (talk) 13:00, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • nvm I got confused
  • intro does not mention GDR
    • It's not immediately relevant to the office of Chancellor, so I'd rather keep the lead from getting unnecessarily long. It's mentioned in the FRG section relevant to the time period. BegbertBiggs (talk) 13:34, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think at the end there should be a stats table, with something like longest-serving
  • why start with Reichstag 13?
    • Good point, it doesn't fit. Took it out. BegbertBiggs (talk) 13:34, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • You don't have to take it out. I would have preferred to have 1-12 plugged in (since they apparently did exist)
        • I did consider adding them, but I felt that it may unnecessarily clutter the table. The Chancellor wasn't responsible to parliament during that period so it's not immediately relevant to the office. BegbertBiggs (talk) 01:13, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nergaal (talk) 11:32, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments Nergaal. BegbertBiggs (talk) 13:34, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nazi section is a bit weird. It lacks a note for the - when the Reichstag was suspended, and the two subnotes can probably used as a footnote to the table instead of being the only two rows in the entire list with a note added right there.
  • I might be wrong, but I think each section can/should have a short sentence explaining what changed from the previous section (i.e. constitution of X came into effect establishing Y). Nergaal (talk) 08:40, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I had that in but I removed it again because I felt like it didn't fit. @Nergaal: See this version, if preferred I can add them back. BegbertBiggs (talk) 13:03, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think having a sentence saying why the government scheme change would be appropriate. Nergaal (talk) 09:43, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Brought back the brief paragraphs of historical context (in slightly modified form). BegbertBiggs (talk) 23:17, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just realized that both List of Chancellors of Germany by time in office and List of Chancellors of the Federal Republic of Germany by time in office are likely wp:cforks of this list. There is no obvious reason why they would need to be in separate places as they add nothing other than being sortable. Nergaal (talk) 13:40, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 12:55, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Too many paras in the lead per MOS:LEAD.
    • Fixed.
  • Image captions which are complete sentences need full stops.
    • Fixed.
  • "the Unification of " no need for capital U.
    • Fixed.
  • "This list of Chancellors contains the heads of government " feels odd to see this in the lead, with the bold. Can't this just be embodied as a note in the list itself?
    • I don't understand the question, removed the paragraph.
  • Where are the row scopes?
    • Added.
  • Left Office etc -> Left office.
    • Fixed.
  • Party and colour should really go side-by-side as they relate to the same entity.
    • Changed.
  • Images ought to have alt text.
    • Added.
  • It's a real shame to have to split these across various sections rather than have one large table.
  • Consistent date formats in the refs please.
    • Fixed.
  • New York Times -> The New York Times.
    • Fixed.

The Rambling Man (talk) 11:39, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments The Rambling Man. — BegbertBiggs (talk) 23:36, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support: As someone who knows german politics very well, i can say that the list is complete and gives all the right information. The lead gives an great instruction to the topic and the following tables look good. They have a good width are not to packed with informations. Great work!--Lirim.Z (talk) 22:05, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! BegbertBiggs (talk) 16:25, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comments –

  • Haven't reviewed this in detail, but I did notice that the See also section came after the references. Normally it would appear before the refs, so you might want to consider moving it.
  • Also, the publishers of refs 15 and 16 are print publications, so the publishers should be italicized. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:25, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley edit

  • "the longest-serving Chancellor to this date". "to this date" means nothing without knowing the date. I would delete - if Merkel hangs on long enough to overtake him it can easily be changed.
    • Took out the sentence because I agree it's not all that relevant.
  • "Under the 1919 Weimar Constitution the Chancellors were to be appointed by the President" Why "were to be? I suggest "Under the 1919 Weimar Constitution Chancellors were appointed by the directly elected President" (adding that the president is directly ellected).
    • Good point, changed.
  • A paragraph briefly summarizing the the powers of the Chancellor in different periods would be useful to the reader.
    • The lead is already a bit full, some more detail in the short paragraphs of each section may be possible. I'll look into it later again, if I remember.
  • You could move the last paragraph of the lead to a note as it is not of general interest, unlike the powers of the chancellor. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:48, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This extra paragraph might make room for moving up the Germany template, which is very inconveniently placed so that it is not possible to see the whole timeline.
    • Yeah, the template placement is awkward. I had it there because it didn't cause problems for me, but of course that's different on smaller screens. At the top of the page it would mess with the first section's table, so I have decided to move it to the See also section.
  • A good article. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:22, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Any other concerns or comments that haven't been addressed yet? BegbertBiggs (talk) 23:04, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; @Dudley Miles: it appears that your outstanding comments are the only thing left. So a month late: are you good with this list? It appears there was one point left, BegbertBiggs, regarding a paragraph summarizing the powers of the Chancellor. --PresN 16:52, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh you're right, I totally failed to follow up on that last point. I'm still unsure about putting that in the lead but I'll see what I can do. BegbertBiggs (talk) 12:15, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:52, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_Chancellors_of_Germany/archive1&oldid=847388110"