Talk:List of governors of Delaware/Archive 1

FL?
If political parties are added to the first section, I think that this would be an excellent candidate for Featured lists. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 22:52, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I want so say that it follows in line with the what the colours match upwith for the lower sections, but i can not say for sure. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 04:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Congrads on the FL, well deserved. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 04:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

question
Why, in the first table some rows are colored in another color since all names cited are independant? CG 17:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Kindly read the first footnote. ;) &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) 13:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry. Thank you. CG 17:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You don't need to be sorry; and gladly. :) &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) 07:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

References and Notes
The recent rearrangement of references and notes while well intentioned, actually makes the notes harder to use than previously. A short note answering most questions, followed by a footnote going into detail is preferred to having to always going to a footnote. Further the particular methodology being used does not permit the reader to confidently return to the table in the same place. They have to correctly guess the letter assigned to their particular note. stilltim 22:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikilinks
Removal of wikilinks in a table because a similar link exists elsewhere in the table again makes finding information harder for a reader. While appropriate to reduce the links in a narrative because of their distractions, such a problem does not exist in a table and the reader's convenience should prevail. stilltim 22:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Bloating
Do we really need residence, county, and occupation? That doesn't really seem to help with a list of governors, and yes, I know this list is featured, but List of Governors of Kentucky is about to be featured and it lacks that kind of stuff. Now, it could be that such that kind of information is more important/relevant in Delaware, but still, I'd like to try pruning it out and see how folks like it - but I'm hesitant to do so since this is a featured list. (Generally, I'd like to bring all of the lists up to the standard of Kentucky, and hopefully convert existing ones to look more like it). --Golbez 17:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * As suspected one person's bloating is another's valuable information. In every state where someone is from and what they do professionally is of enormous importance in understanding them and describing them. I strongly feel that this information should be included in any "standard" list of politicians of any sort and will restore the deleted data. I would add religion to that list as well, but being aware of the importance of the presentation, would limit the columns to what can usually display on one row. stilltim 22:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * And how is a governor's place of residence, or occupation, valuable information for this list? If you want to know where they're from or what they do when they're not a governor - which is what this list is about - you're welcome to click the link. --Golbez 19:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I also note you removed a lot of information on passages - like why people resigned - in exchange for putting back their occupations and residences. Which is more relevant for a list of governors? --Golbez 19:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, it seems to me the first two things you would want to know about anyone is- Where are you from and what do you do for a living. Specifically regarding governors, until recently most were part-time, still living at their residence and still frequently following their profession. But even if they were not, their home and profession defines them every bit as much as their party. Actually it was not my intention to remove information. It certainly was not done in exchange for residence and profession, but simply to put a summary in the note cell so the reader would not have to look at a footnote every time. More information could easily be added as a footnote.
 * I would think that the information I would want to know about a governor is when they served, what party they were, and who their lieutenant governor was. If you want to know their personal information - like location, profession, lifespan, wife - click their name. Generally, the trend for these lists seems to be towards moving all the information to the footnotes, though I am open to other methods (I've tested one on the Alabama list, I need more input on it). Finally, if you include all of the (what I consider) trivial information, it leaves no room for (what I consider) important information, like lieutenant governor. --Golbez 08:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you remember who US Grant's Vice President was? Of course not. Do you remember his home state and profession? Of course. Why? Because the latter is important and the former is not. Including the Lt. Gov makes makes no sense to me for just that reason. I'd rather see the President of the US during the Governor's term. At least it anchors in time when he served. On the other hand I do like the pictures and could be convinced to abbreviate other biographical info to include that. Let me try a few things. stilltim 19:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Home state? No. Profession? Of course, he was a general, just like Eisenhower after him and Washington before him. But do you remember off the top of your head Coolidge's previous profession and home? You cherrypicked your example. We list the Vice Presidents on the "list of presidents of the united states" and the FLC for Kentucky expressed desire to know who the Lt Govs were; apparently people disagree that the Vice President is not important. The president of the US during the governor's term is not useful, though, I don't think, since he doesn't report to him and is not appointed by him. (Except in the case of territorial governors, and yes, we do include the president who appointed them). Also the fact that Governor and President terms rarely line up. --Golbez 23:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I also have to say that while the additional tables you have added are interesting, I have a similar reaction to yours (on residence & profession) in that to me they seem less important. Obviously we have a well intentioned and honest difference of perspective, so my response was to leave what you added. However, it is so different from the main list in its content and presentation as to make the whole article seem awkwardly designed to me. I wish there was some way to give some consistency to all of it. And I really don't believe the party summary deserves the prominent location you have given it, but I like the colors. "Other high offices" is also a potentially misleading title. Some would argue that other jobs belong in here. If this table stays in the article, I think I would like to see it labeled "Federal legislative offices" or something like that, with a third column for the Continental Congress. BTW, I've almost always seen members of the Continental Congress described as "Continental Congressmen" or "Delegates to the Continental Congress," and Richard Bassett was only a judge for a brief period of time- it was much more important that he served in the Constitutional Convention of 1787 and as the first Chief Justice of the state Court of Common Pleas. But then where does it all stop, hence my belief the reader just needs to read the article and not us try to get everything in a table. I don't claim my method is perfect, but I do think it's better than what we have. This list was featured a long time ago; since then, the standards for featured governor lists seem to have changed. They should all be as similar as possible, not have one stick out. --Golbez 08:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It wasn't so different with my style of table. ;) Those tables aren't for state offices (except governor), only congressional, major judicial, and cabinet, and foreign executives. I agree that the tables probably aren't the best way to portray that information, but I do think that information needs to be expressed in the list article in some fashion, especially considering how many governors in this country went on to be senators and presidents (and many resigned to become such, too). --Golbez 08:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It is clear to me we both have the similar objective of a clean concise article with relevant information, and I hope we can work out our disagreements recognizing that. stilltim 02:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The consensus, with Alabama, Kentucky, and California lists now featured, seems to trend more towards those than from this style. This isn't about the people, this is about the office, listing the people who served in it, when, and why they left early. If you want to know where someone lived, click their name. I can't think of any politician list where we include such information. Certainly not on any of the American lists. (Furthermore, it leaves zero room to mention a lieutenant governor, and I think Delaware has one?) I will respond to the other comments more specifically later. --Golbez 03:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the root of our difference may be that I do think the list is about the people who held the office, not the office itself. I look at it as a summary index of them. And how is it that you can say there is a "consensus" when it certainly does not include me, the contributor of a FA on the same subject? I would repectfully suggest that a consensus requires agreement by all responsible and active contributors. I am certainly one of those, and am happy to participate in a true conversation. stilltim 19:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm saying that in the 16 months since this became a featured list, the ideals for a featured list of governors have shifted. This was the first one; we've improved on the model. :) --Golbez 23:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: No consensus, so no move at this time. In reaching this determination, I looked at the discussions for all three state governor lists that were proposed for moving: Delaware, Florida, and Texas. Orlady (talk) 03:02, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

List of Governors of Delaware → — Governor of Delaware was a stub; the division between it and this list article is unnatural/unnecessary. This article covers all the former content of Governor of Delaware and is all-round superior. --Cyber cobra (talk) 02:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I saw you move Colorado's governor page five or so weeks ago. I was getting my feet wet in the governor area at the time, but have grown fond of the area (to Golbez' chagrin).   I had to do some research on the current 19 FL governor's lists and their associated governor page.
 * 9 governor pages redirected to the list page, 9 governor pages had content and Colorado had already been moved.
 * 5 of the 9 pages that didn't redirect (Alabama, Arkansas, Hawaii, New York and Wisconsin) should be redirected as their content is already superseded by their corresponding list page.
 * 2 of the 9 pages that didn't redirect (California and New Jersey) could have arguments to redirect to their corresponding list page.
 * 2 of the 9 (Indiana and Kentucky) are really great pages. Indiana is listed as GA and Kentucky could easily be. (Maryland is also GA)
 * I'm leaning to say oppose Neutral based upon what I've seen of Indiana and Kentucky. Those two pages really show why the Governor of Indiana and List of Governors of Indiana should be separate pages.
 * After reading the arguments at Talk:List of Governors of Texas, I see pros and cons with keeping things as is and combining the articles. I truly don't know what is best.  My only strong feeling is that if you merge some articles, all eligible articles should be merged. Bgwhite (talk) 07:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * But, I have some questions... Are you planning or should be planning to move/merge all governor pages that are redirected? I haven't been around nearly as long as Cybercobra and Golbez... What you've seen, do pages that are redirected stay that way or do they eventually get separated with both having content?  What are the pluses and minuses to redirect compared to a move/merge? Bgwhite (talk) 05:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying separate articles are a apriori bad, but there's no point in having either extremely duplicative articles or one of them be a stub; the separation is arbitrary and harder to navigate; merge them, then re-split if/when there's actually enough content to justify separate pages. So, Governor of Indiana is fine, Governor of Delaware is stupid. Not all state governorships necessarily have complex enough histories to need 2 distinct articles. --Cyber cobra (talk) 07:18, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Inclusion of information about the office means that that information should be punted back to a new Governor of Delaware article detailing the American office, its powers, and its history. This page should be cleaned up and possibly include the colonial governors of Delaware.) -LlywelynII (talk) 16:09, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * As bgwhite points out above, for an example of what I'm talking about, cf. Governor of Kentucky v. List of Governors of Kentucky. (@cobra, it's stubbiness that is not a priori bad: it points out the need for more work. Meanwhile, the information is easier, not harder, to navigate by being similar to Wikipedia's other "list of..." pages.) -LlywelynII (talk) 16:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it's made harder by arbitrarily being split between 2 pages. --Cyber cobra (talk) 01:05, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Support per my arguements at Talk:List of Governors of Texas. I agree that two articles is the better situation but while we only have one the proposed title is more logical. Dpmuk (talk) 19:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - while in general I would support this move, this particular article has "Featured list" status, which makes the issue slightly more complicated. This presumably means that the list aspect has been assessed and found to be brilliant, and that status should be maintained. However, the article itself, from a "Governor of Delaware" point of view is not of "Featured article" standard. So the page should not be moved until it has been split into two. Muraho (talk) 16:04, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Is it clear that such a division is necessary? --Cyber cobra (talk) 03:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Governors of Delaware. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110325102907/http://governor.delaware.gov/ to http://governor.delaware.gov/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:28, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:List of Governors of New York which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 14:29, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Non-consecutive terms; and should that be term-limited for Elbert Carvel?
I am seeing in text that there are 71 individuals, serving 74 distinct terms. I do see Joseph Haslet and Elbert Carvel serving non-consecutive terms; did I miss someone?

In 1964, Elbert Carvel did run for U.S. Senate, but it's also the case that he was term-limited as governor, because he was finishing the 2nd of 2 nonconsecutive terms.
 * I believe the third one is Charles Polk Jr. - he was elected as a Federalist, was term limited, then later succeeded from speaker of the house as a Whig.
 * As for Carvel: Yeah, probably right. When I wrote this I probably wasn't remembering that it was his second term. Fixing. Thanks! --Golbez (talk) 22:28, 21 April 2019 (UTC)