Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Oregon state symbols/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 The Rambling Man 17:35, 1 December 2009 [1].

List of Oregon state symbols edit

Nominator(s): Another Believer (Talk) 18:40, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets FL criteria and closely resembles List of Indiana state symbols, List of Kentucky state symbols, and List of Maryland state symbols, all of which have FL status. Currently, the list has no disambiguation links, all external links are functional, and all images contain alt text. Thanks! Another Believer (Talk) 18:40, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to make aware one issue that has been raised. In working on this list, I essentially followed the formats used in List of Indiana state symbols, List of Kentucky state symbols, and List of Maryland state symbols (all of which have FL status) for the sake of uniformity. In some ways, I feel the Oregon list is even better in that the description actually indicates why the symbol is significant in relation to the state itself; the other lists mentioned either lack descriptions or do not offer specific significance. Over at WikiProject Oregon, Esprqii and Katr67 commented on the list; I feel I addressed Esprqii's request for the Description column, but Katr67's preference for a single sortable column has not been accommodated (nor has Katr67 edited the list to be a single table). I have no problem with Katr67's request, but I was not sure if having sections (Insignia, Flora, etc.) was preferable to FL reviewers. I will leave it up to review to decide whether a single table is preferable; it makes no difference to me, as I care more about the symbols and descriptions themselves, not necessarily how they are displayed. To all reviewers, thanks for taking the time to offer suggestions and comments. --Another Believer (Talk) 18:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - lead is a bit short—Chris!c/t 22:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can certainly work on expanding the lead. Doing... --Another Believer (Talk) 18:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. If additional suggestions are made for expanding the lead, I will be happy to try to accommodate. --Another Believer (Talk) 01:28, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ok, I am satisfied.—Chris!c/t 02:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note that Esprqii also mentioned that he would prefer a single sortable table (it's not a !vote, but might be leaning towards a consensus) and that I'm not going to arbitrarily change it to that format while someone is working on it, without discussion. Cheers, Katr67 (talk) 23:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Until it is decided whether one table would be better or not, I went ahead and made the tables sortable by Type, Symbol or Year (apart from the first one, which does not need the sort function). --Another Believer (Talk) 18:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Confirming my preference for a sortable table. I just think people might want to sort by date of adoption or name of the item. Really nice job on the descriptions. --Esprqii (talk) 23:58, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Again, until it is decided whether one list would be better or not, I went ahead and made the tables sortable by Type, Symbol or Year. --Another Believer (Talk) 18:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I was initially skeptical of this article's nomination, but I'm really pleased with how it turned out and impressed with the nominator's willingness to work hard and extremely courteously for consensus. (Disclosure: I did a small amount of work on the article prior to its nomination, and somewhat more after the FL nomination.) --Esprqii (talk) 00:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Esprqii. Your support is much appreciated, as are your contributions. --Another Believer (Talk) 02:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Geraldk

Oppose for now - I think you're right that the inclusion of the text descriptions is a big improvement, and will set the standard for these lists in the future. I'm interested to see what other reviewers says about combining the tables to allow for sortability - that's something I'd like to do for the Maryland list as well. But I have serious concerns.

  • First, Chris is right, the lead could use some expansion (as could leads in all three of the existing ones, including the Maryland one I helped get through FLC).
First, I appreciate your compliment. I can certainly expand the lead. Doing... --Another Believer (Talk) 18:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 01:28, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second, in at least one spot the source does not back up claims in the description, the claim that only Oregon sunstone includes copper crystals.
Thanks for the reminder! I took the information from the Sunstone article, which uses a jewelry website as a source. Knowing it was not reliable, I did not add the source to the list, but forgot to find a replacement. I went ahead and removed the copper part--I will re-add if I find a reliable source. --Another Believer (Talk) 18:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Third, some of the text comes perilously close to copying verbatim from the sources, to an extent that is more worrisome than simple paraphrasing. A couple of examples:
  • Your text, "Dawn redwood flourished in the Miocene epoch and left its record embedded in rocks across Oregon." Source text, "The Metasequoia flourished in the Miocene epoch of 25 to 5 million years ago and left its record embedded in rocks across the Oregon landscape."
  • Your text, "Salmon provided the basis for the coastal Native Americans' life, and was the subject of many legends, special rites, and taboos." Source text, "Salmon provided the basis for the coastal Native Americans' life and so was naturally held in high regard. Many legends, special rites, and taboos were connected with the coming of salmon."
I can work on paraphrasing further, but it is hard to re-word such short descriptions, especially when I am trying to keep them brief myself. --Another Believer (Talk) 18:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I worked on paraphrasing further. Better? --Another Believer (Talk) 22:36, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A couple other notes:
*What's salal? (in the flower one)
Done. I added a link to the salal article and described what it is briefly. Hope that addresses the concern. --Esprqii (talk) 00:00, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Esprqii. --Another Believer (Talk) 18:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is shgresources.com a reliable source?
I can find replacement sources. Doing... --Another Believer (Talk) 22:36, 31 October 2009 (UTC) --Another Believer (Talk) 18:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 22:36, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Geraldk (talk) 23:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Rey makes a decent argument, but I'm ok supporting whether or not they are combined. Geraldk (talk) 01:11, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would rather the tables not be combined. Really, I don't think a state's symbols are the kind of thing one would want to sort. I believe the current layout is great as it is. You just need a longer lead. Reywas92Talk 22:58, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Working on the lead now. Any other suggestions as far as expansion goes? I wanted to indicate which symbol types were unique to Oregon (for instance, if Oregon was the only state to have an official Statehood Pageant or Team), but I cannot find sources to cite these claims. --Another Believer (Talk) 23:06, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I strongly support having the information in a single table. The current multiple table format is great so far as a presentation by category, but it would also be useful to view the list by year of adoption. To accomodate both presentations requires either two lists or a single sortable table; of these two possibilities, the single sortable table is much preferable. The loss of horizontal real estate could be made up by putting the image directly under the symbol name and putting the notes directly under the year of adoption. I'd be glad to do the heavy lifting on this, but don't wish to do it unilaterally. YBG (talk) 04:51, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For comparison's sake, I created a single-table version in my user space here. I like being able to sort by year and type in one table rather than individually. See what you all think. --Esprqii (talk) 22:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I like it. Thank you for taking the time to make the single list. It appears there is a preference for a single, sortable table, so feel free to copy the table over (being sure to adjust for the corrections you made to the list since then). I had the symbols sorted chronologically by default, but it does make more sense to go alphabetically by symbol, as you have it. Then, if interested, the table can sort by date. Once you have copied the table over, I will be sure to add the flag and seal, as discussed on the list's talk page. Thanks again! --Another Believer (Talk) 23:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Esprqii's single table looks great -- though it does not include a column for the 'category' or whatever the section headings should be called. Is there any interest in trying to combine columns for better presentation and better usage of horizontal real estate? I tried briefly, but wasn't satisfied. Also, the Portland State Office building includes some artwork for some of these state emblems. The Public Health Division page in the Oregon Bluebook has photo that gives you some idea of what is there, but close-up pictures might make a nice addition here. YBG (talk) 00:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it looks good as is--I doubt there is a need to indicate that a flower is "Flora" and milk is a "Culture" symbol. I went ahead and used Esprqii's single table form to edit the list, incorporating the wording changes made since then. I added the Flag, so all that remains is the seal (which has quite a bit of history). The list looks great! Thanks so much for collaborating. --Another Believer (Talk) 00:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions: Should 1854 be displayed in the Year column for the motto, as opposed to 1987? 1854 was when the motto was originally used, as mentioned in the lead, though 1987 is when the most current motto (which happens to be the same as the original) was adopted. The same question applies to the seal, which has a somewhat complicated history. --Another Believer (Talk) 00:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC) (Edit: Issues addressed) --Another Believer (Talk) 20:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I am not terribly familiar with which images can be used and which ones cannot. Am I right in assuming that all Portland Trail Blazers logos are unsuitable for use on this list? Surely there must be an image we can use to illustrate the Trail Blazers. --Another Believer (Talk) 05:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe a free team photo if one can be found or a photo of their stadium (like this one? In order to be included in the article the current image would have to meet all 10 criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. Currently it fails 10c but the real question is whether it could ever pass criterion 8, does having it really "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding" - probably not. Guest9999 (talk) 11:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Replaced image, along with the caption and alt text. Thanks! --Another Believer (Talk) 19:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As the 'state team' designation given to the 1990-91 Trailblazers, it seems a picture of that year's team would be more appropriate. In any event, ground was not broken on the Rose Garden until 1993, so a picture of the Memorial Coliseum would be better. YBG (talk) 03:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. While I am not familiar with uploading images, apart from album covers for infoboxes, I went ahead and changed the Rose Garden image to one of the Memorial Coliseum. --Another Believer (Talk) 04:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Great job by the nominator to implement all the right suggestions by the reviewers. This is the best list among these state symbol lists and should be used as a model by the editors who work on these lists.--Cheetah (talk) 21:22, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:36, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
Done.
  • Image:Map of USA OR.svg – I don't think this should be in an article about Oregon's state symbols. If readers really want to know, they can click on the link to the Oregon article. I would rather see something more relevant, or no image at all.
A good idea; perhaps the state flag would be good here?
I think so, if you don't mind having the state flag in the article twice. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I used the map as that is what some of the other featured lists for state symbols used. If this is not preferred, I have no problem with the flag or another symbol being used. --Another Believer (Talk) 04:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is by far the best state symbols list we have on Wikipedia. I don't think we need to follow the example of the lower-quality ones. So yes, I think a flag or another symbol would be better here. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 03:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "100-foot Metasequoia trees" Need a metric conversion (use {{convert}} if necessary, and don't forget to put adj=on into the template).
Done.
Done, removed redundant link. --Esprqii (talk) 17:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:36, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All I can say is that, according to the site, the information on eNature is the "same data set used to create the printed Audubon Field Guides", and "all the data has been carefully reviewed and vetted by leading biologists, zoologists and other natural history specialists." If the site is not considered reliable, I'd be happy to track down another source to provide a physical description of the Oregon hairy triton. --Another Believer (Talk) 04:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That would be appreciated, thanks. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Doing... --Another Believer (Talk) 03:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 05:20, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retracted idea about combining columns from YBG

(Outdent) I've boldly reduced the number of columns by two -- first merging 'Notes' into 'Year adopted' and then 'Image' into 'Symbol', resulting, I believe, in a better appearing table. Please feel free to object to and/or revert one or both of these changes! Cheers. YBG (talk) 09:56, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I very much appreciate your attempt to improve the list, I definitely prefer the previous version. To me, this version looks a bit cluttered, with the image sitting just below the symbol name, and it was also nice having a separate column for the references so that the numbers were separated from the other dates and descriptions. However, it would be nice to get feedback from other reviewers as well. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:20, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree that putting the images in the same column as the symbol name column makes the list cluttered. I don't see any benefit to putting the refs in the "Adopted" column as opposed to their own; also, it makes it look as if only the years are referenced, as opposed to the entire row. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:31, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. I will go ahead and revert to the previous version. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:48, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and reverted. For the record, here is the version suggested by YBG. If consensus concludes that this version is better, it can always be changed back. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:51, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your input. I appreciate the fact that you waited for another person to aggree before reverting. Incidentally, I agree that it did appear a bit cluttered and needed to be touched up. For example, to correct the problem of the notes appearing to be just related to the date of adoption, some of them could have been moved to the description column or the symbol column. I didn't take the time to sort that out. My motivation was to make it more concise and balance out the columns a bit. While I like white space, having some columns that are almost entirely white space and others that are quite full makes it seem unbalanced. Additionally, the 6-column table is about 50% longer than the 4-column version, and so takes longer to scroll through if you just want to get a quick birds-eye view of the topic. Incidentally, there was also an intervening version which combined Adopted and Notes while keeping Symbol and Image separate. And thanks for your kind words of appreciaiton for the effort I spent editing -- although it really wasn't that much. YBG (talk) 01:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Outdent) Here's a few additional ideas to mull over:

  1. √ Consider using a horizontal rule to separate the obverse and reverse of the State Flag. I made this minor change in the version mentioned above and thought it looked nice.
  2. √ Consider using 1987<br>1854-1957 for the state motto dates.
  3. Consider putting 'State<br>Animal' and the like in the first column. Retracted YBG (talk) 08:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Consider grouping topically like section titles in the non-tabular version. Retracted YBG (talk) 08:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Consider left-justifying the contents of description column; centered prose seems a bit odd. Retracted now that column widths are better, no appreciable difference YBG (talk) 02:40, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. √ What about the State Seal? Should it have an entry like the flag?
Discussion of the above now retracted or resolved ideas from YBG

Though I could implement these ideas unilaterally, they are much easier to visualize than the changes I did with the columns, where I thought a picture was worth 1000 words. So I offer these ideas for your consideration and possible implementation. By the way, I really do like the tabular format with descriptions much better than the previous bulleted list with section headings. Great collaboration, folks! YBG (talk) 01:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC) Note: I've changed the lists above and below from bullets to numbers for ease in cross-referencing YBG (talk) 06:34, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts on YBG's comments:
  1. I like it. A thin boundary (i.e. horizontal divider) would look better in the middle of that column.
  2. Also a good idea.
  3. Not sure what is meant here. I don't think the word "State" should be put in each row, as it is clear this is about state symbols.
  4. I prefer alphabetical sorting, which is easy, objective and intuitive; also, the topics might be hard to define.
  5. No preference; centered or left-aligned is fine with me.
  6. I don't see why the seal shouldn't have an entry. Dabomb87 (talk) 05:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
YBG, I appreciate your suggestions. This list is truly the product of a great collaboration. My thoughts:
  1. Great idea. Done.
  2. Done.
  3. I do not think "State" is necessary. It would be redundant, and it is obvious the list is about state symbols.
  4. Agree with Dabomb87. I think alphabetical is most appropriate.
  5. I prefer the centered text, mostly because all other cells are centered, but I don't feel terribly strong about it either way.
  6. Oh yes! The state seal. It should definitely be added, but I made a comment on the list's talk page about how the history of the seal is a bit complicated. I was not exactly sure which date to use. Any suggestions? Adding this seal may mean some adjustments need to be made to the lead, depending on which dates/information is used for the entry. Thanks for the reminder. --Another Believer (Talk) 18:39, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I completed the row for the Seal, and adjusted the lead appropriately. Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 20:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All of these ideas are resolved or retracted, except for left-justifying the description column. I'd like to defer that and consider it along with some other white-space related issues I'll bring up below. YBG (talk) 08:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Left-justifying now retracted also; entire group of ideas collapsed together. YBG (talk) 02:40, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, here's a couple more ideas: (a) √ Change column header from 'Year adopted' to 'Adopted' (b) Combine 'Note' into 'Symbol' column -- eliminates a column, but still evident that the note applies to the entire row. (Retracted YBG (talk) 05:49, 27 November 2009 (UTC)) What do you think? YBG (talk) 07:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of these retracted/resolved ideas from YBG and column width
(a) I don't feel strongly about "Year adopted" or "Adopted", but I feel "Year adopted" is calling a spade a spade (it is what it is). Although, for the motto and seal, which have a bit more complicated of a history, "Adopted" might be better since they have several significant dates. (b) I like the columns are they are now, and I have no problem with the separate column for notes/references. I like things less cluttered. I was waiting to see if any suggestions were going to be offered regarding the state seal and its history (and which dates should be used for adoption), but I will just go ahead and take went ahead and took a stab at it myself. YBG, if any of the six points made above have been addressed or retracted, feel free to strike them or place them in a collapse box so I know that the issue has been taken care of. Thanks so much! --Another Believer (Talk) 19:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strike-out, √-marks, collapse-boxes added above to show its mostly-resolved.
  • In the list itself, I changed "Year Adopted" to "Adopted".
Looking at the whole list, I think it would be improved if Description was moved to the end (or just before the Notes if we're going to keep that as a separate column). Then if the Description was left justified, and all cells vertically aligned at the top, I think the visual appeal would be greatly improved .... the content-area and the white-space would be both generally triangular in shape, giving each entry a greater distinction from the other entries while at the same time uniting the whole list together. I may be way off base on this, but unless you've got some big issues, I think it would be worth trying just to be able to see if it should stick or be reverted. YBG (talk) 08:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do not have any problems with the list in its current form, but if it bothers you then you are welcome to experiment. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, the form didn't 'bother me', but I did think there was room for improvement, so I made some changes for others to view:
  • Left justified 'Description' and moved it toward the end
  • Removed the column percentages. This made a significant improvement in appearance -- more than moving the description column =- so I no longer think top-aligning the columns will make any significant further improvement.
So, what do the rest of you think? YBG (talk) 07:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly welcome other reviewers to add input, but for the record I much prefer the previous version. --Another Believer (Talk) 07:35, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I like the old version too, but not necessarily because the aesthetics were better. For some reason, the current revision of the article occupies only three-fourths of my browser; the far right quarter is just whitespace. The previous version did not have this problem. For this reason, I don't agree with the most recent edit either. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:46, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Outdent) I can readily appreciate your frustration with excess white space. That was one of my problems with the previous version -- the way the table was laid out, on my browser, the description column was unnecessarily narrow, creating an excess of white space in the other columns, with the result that you couldn't see very many of the symbols simultaneously. I have put back in some percentages that seem to work on my browser, but you'll have to let me know how it appears on yours.

Type Symbol Descr Adopted Image Descr Note Total
Old %'s 18% 30% 40% 13% 13% 8% 122%
No %'s - - - - - - -
New %'s 1 14% 17% 2% 15% 50% 2% 100%
New %'s 2 16% 20% 5% 2% 55% 2% 100%

As you can see, the previous percentages added up to 122%, but the ones I used add up to 100%. I intentionally made some of the percentages too small in order to avoid putting any extra white space into those columns. My browser at least expands them. Is this any improvement? Any comments about left-justifying the description column or changing the column order? YBG (talk) 04:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer the original order of columns. To me, it looks strange to have the images in the center of the page. I prefer the original version in all ways, except I think the Type and Symbol column widths could be decreased a bit to reduce white space. The current version looks okay as far as the Type and Symbol widths go, though I do think the Description column is too wide, especially compared to all of the others. Again, I think the column order should be Type, Symbol, Description, Adopted, Image, and Note, as this seems to be the best way to convey the information to readers based on importance. --Another Believer (Talk) 07:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I also prefer the image on the side. I think it would look OK on the left, to the right of the "Type" column as well, but I'm happy with it on the right. --Esprqii (talk) 19:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So what more do I need to do at this point? I mean, I feel I should be the one making edits to the article to satisfy reviewers, but at the same time I do not want to step on a reviewer's toes who is making edits to the list. Do I need to revert to the original version, keeping the recent punctuation edits that were made? Do I need to wait for other proposals made by YBG. I have no problem waiting, I just didn't know if there was more I needed to do at this point.
I think the best compromise might be to revert to the original version, but lessen the widths of the Type and Symbols columns. This would satisfy requests that the image return to the right-hand side of the page, but less white space would exist, which is something I think YBG, Dabomb, and even I think would be preferable. Shall I do this, or did you have any other ideas YBG? --Another Believer (Talk) 00:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead and revert and change the column widths to something not quite a drastic as I had. What about the left-justification of description? In the midst of all of the other changes, did you notice enough difference to have a preference? YBG (talk) 01:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted, replaced the minor edits made since the column width changes, and played with the widths a bit myself. What do you think? I like it, though I think a little longer width would be nice for the Symbol column, with a bit less for the Description and Note columns. I do prefer the centered Description text, mostly because all of the other cells are centered, but I don't think that it would be too distracting if the text were left-justified. Thoughts on the current widths? --Another Believer (Talk) 02:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks great! Thanks for your patience working through my nit-picking and your willingness to take an honest look at my different ideas. (I will shortly collapse have now collapsed some of my comments above) I still have a very slight preference for left-justifying the description, mostly because it is a prose paragraph, but now that we have the widths tweaked nicely, I don't think it makes much difference. To get more width in the 21% Symbol column, would you like to try merging the 4% Notes column into it -- that would give a total of 25%? Yes, a separate notes column is a bit less cluttered, so it is a matter of weighing that disadvantage against the advantage of a slightly wider Symbol column. If the extra horizontal space makes an appreciable difference, I say let's go for it. YBG (talk) 02:24, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I couldn't resist playing some more -- but this time I did it on a sub-page of my user page. Here's the results:
  1. Merged Note column into Symbol column — Some improvement.
  2. Expanded Symbol column by 1% — This one is the best in my browser.
  3. Vertically align — I was a bit disappointed with this one.
What do you think? YBG (talk) 05:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to sound like a broken record, or one unwilling to accept changes suggested by others, but I still prefer the current version. --Another Believer (Talk) 09:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The current version, version 1, and version 2 all look fine. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:21, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that's fine with me -- I wasn't trying to beat a dead horse, just responding to the request for more width in the symbol column. In my browser, the extra width removed some of the surplus line breaks in the symbol column. Anyway, I'm satisfied that we've reached the best possible considering the inherit problems of trying to cope with multiple browsers and multiple screen sizes. YBG (talk) 05:49, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 09:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Merge the first two paragraphs of the lead - a short, two-sentence intro para looks weak.
Done.
  • Happily you could make the lead image larger if resolution allows for it.
I was under the impression thumbs were preferred, as they adjusted based on personal computer configurations.
Well last time I checked the MOS, it allowed images of up to 300px. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:37, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now that the lead is shorter, I think the current size is appropriate. If you disagree, I can change.
  • "She Flies With Her Own Wings" really? What makes it not mean "He flies with his own wings"? And not sure we need to continually capitalise those words...
Not sure. Just going off what sources indicate.
Interesting. I see nothing in that particular Latin phrase that indicates "she" rather than "he"... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:37, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "33rd state on" expand a little - the 33rd state of the United States I'm guessing.
Yes, and I think this is implied since the first sentence mentions "U.S. state".
I think you could expand it for those non-US readers who may not be able to make that jump. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:37, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
  • "until more than 50 years later" - more than -> over.
Done.
  • Last para of lead should probably be a section after the actual symbols since it discusses, in detail, symbols that didn't make it...
Shall I just create a "Rejected symbols" section and move the bulleted list there? My concern is that it would just look like a stand-alone list of facts. Should it be changed back to prose, as it was previously?
My preference would be to have a section of rejected symbols in prose, after the list. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:37, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
I agree that the rejected symbols should appear after the actual ones. Much better to have the real symbols appear first rather than the wannabee. And if there were just one or two, prose would be best. But with a list of four items, a bulleted list allows the reader to scan the list easily. (Full disclosure: I was the one who reformatted it into a bulleted list.) Also, I think the term 'rejected' could be improved on. The paragraph says 'but were ultimately rejected' -- but it seems to me that 'but ultimately were not adopted' better reflects the various ways that these four symbols failed to gain official status. YBG (talk) 05:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will let The Rambling Man reply before I make any changes to the article. I don't have a preference for prose or a bulleted list in this case. I have no problem with "but ultimately were not adopted" in the paragraph, but what would the section be called? Rejected does imply that these symbols were voted against, when really they were just not successful. --Another Believer (Talk) 06:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No need to make the "type" of symbol bold.
I prefer the bolding, but will remove if required. Was following the format used by other featured lists.
The other lists need to be fixed! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:37, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
  • "through proper management" - is that fact or opinion?
Done. Removed "proper".
  • schoolchildren or school children?
I think either is acceptable. "Schoolchild" exists in the Merriam-Webster dictionary.
Quite, but be consistent. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:37, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh! Sorry, I did not realize both instances were used. I thought you were just questioning the validity of the word "schoolchildren". Both uses now read as "school children" for consistency. Done.
  • "make jelly" - I'd be tempted to link jelly because to UK readers, for instance, jelly is not jelly, it's jam...
Done. Linked to Fruit preserves.

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the additional suggestions. --Another Believer (Talk) 19:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm happy with the rejected symbols being discussed in prose rather than a bullet point list. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:30, 30 November 2009 (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_Oregon_state_symbols/archive1&oldid=1140201790"