Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Governors of Iowa/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 archived by SchroCat 07:39, 13 January 2015.

List of Governors of Iowa

 * Nominator(s): Golbez (talk) 22:46, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I've been gone from the governor list racket for a while but I was inspired by the election to hop back in. This was a relatively simple list; very few governors had the rudeness to die or resign. I'm trying something new with this than my older ones, namely removing the "other offices" and "living ex-governors". I am being bold and suggesting these aren't very valuable, and add needless maintenance to the article. It doesn't really matter which ones are still living, and as for 'other high offices', even my solid criteria end up being subjective, and if someone really wants to know, it's a quick browse through the articles. That veers into the territory of being about the people rather than being about the office.

Anyway, please let me know what you think of these bold ideas, because whatever we conclude to be the best will be implemented in all the others. :) --Golbez (talk) 22:46, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I undid your change removing former living governors (if you wish to discuss, please do so on the article talk page, not here). I am curious if the idea of listing governors' terms as "1/2" if it was a partial term is used in any sources?  I suspect it isn't, and it is rather inaccurate and misleading, so I would suggest its removal and replacement with the terms as they might be listed in an Iowa history book (I may look this up later, but it would probably be 1-2 wks). – Philosopher Let us reason together. 00:56, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The use of fractions is purely to indicate that a particular term was split between multiple governors. It has no bearing in sourced material but has been successfully used in over a dozen other featured governor lists. I wouldn't mind replacing it with a list of terms if that could be done well, but generally, due to the nature of rowspans, it isn't. Look at List of Presidents of the United States, for example - Nixon's term is much, much smaller than Ford's term, because rowspan simply isn't up to the task. In the past, I've run into problems with rowspans becoming infinitesimally small, so that it becomes misleading to the reader. Going with one cell per row fixes that issue. --Golbez (talk) 21:38, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I take your point - and have had troubles with rowspans myself - but using a fraction to indicate a partial term can be terribly misleading. Better, I think, to have the full number of terms the governor served for part of, with an asterisk or a dagger to indicate that they weren't complete (or even a small (partial) ).  One might expect that if every governor has a whole number that some didn't complete the term and they should be aware of notes for partial terms, but the use of a fraction suggests an additional level of accuracy - and one that just isn't there. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 23:53, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * All I can say on that front is: the few people who have expressed confusion didn't express further when the footnote pointing out how the number works was shown to them; it gives us a handy place to put the footnotes, rather than a mostly-empty column; and the existing featured governor lists included that. If the standard has changed that dramatically, fine, but I'll need more than a single point of feedback to accept that. However, the other lists included the 'other living governor' and 'other high offices' sections as well, so I was bold and suggested removing them. Had to start somewhere. --Golbez (talk) 00:07, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It's just the sheer ... inaccuracy ... of it that bothers me. It's the old rule from math - the more digits to the right of the decimal point you have, the more accurate you are.  Yet adding the greater level of specificity here (1/2) actually does not add accuracy to the list.
 * Pause.
 * ...And I've just had an idea. What about using "+" to signify a partial term?  This avoids the accuracy problem while still clearly conveying that it was more than just the number for the complete term.  – Philosopher Let us reason together. 19:58, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Hm, how would you suggest using that? Also keeping in mind, there are multiple types of partials. For example, when a governor enters a term mid-way, is elected, and exits their next term mid-way. The odd solution I came up with was "1/2 + 1/2" as seen on the List of Governors of Arkansas. --Golbez (talk) 21:59, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, I just had a brainwave. Check out what I've tried. --Golbez (talk) 22:10, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That looks pretty great! It seems to solve the various problems quite nicely while remaining very easy to understand. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 19:28, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment I'm confused -- aren't Terry Branstad and Terry E. Branstad the same person? And if so, why link them both and not tie them together in the lead? For a moment, I assumed they were different people (perhaps father and son?) Regards,  Ruby  2010/  2013  06:12, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, sorry, removed the initial. --Golbez (talk) 18:51, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments The Rambling Man (talk) 08:50, 17 December 2014 (UTC) Comments
 * The lead is on the lean side, I'd beef it up a little.
 * Try to avoid single-sentence paragraphs where possible.
 * Avoid the use of the hash character to represent "number".
 * I'm worried about the use of just colours to denote the party allegiance of the Lt. Gov, you name the party for the Gov each time, but WP:ACCESS seems to be failed for the Lt. Gov.
 * No images of any of the former governers?
 * Several footnotes are unreferenced, where can I cite them?
 * Ref 21 is an en-dash fail.
 * I'll work on some of the others later, but re the Lt. Gov party - A note indicates that they share the governor's party unless specified, and each time when they are different there is a footnote indicating that. And the unreferenced footnotes can all be handled either through the constitutions (which I agree, need references) or the general NGA source. If I need to have a specific reference for each then I'd lose the joining of footnotes like we see for "died in office". There is one single-sentence paragraph; any suggestions on how that should be changed? And finally, what should it have other than "#"? --Golbez (talk) 14:24, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Quick reply, WP:HASH has suggestions regarding the hash symbol. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:30, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * As far as FLs go, is it better to have images for some and not for others (depending on availability) or no images at all? It looks like a little over half of the articles currently have images in them.  Several (but probably not all) of the others have images available that just aren't on Wikipedia or Commons yet. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 22:08, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * In cases where I couldn't get ~90%+ coverage, I'll just pick a few and put them in a gallery along the side. Usually notable ones, as well as ones from each decade or what not, so that it's the same length as the table. --Golbez (talk) 22:27, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'd go with that. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:44, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * As mentioned above, the lead seems a little short. A few ideas: Iowa Territory could be briefly mentioned. Is it possible to incorporate any info about currently living former governors? Party and possibly Lt. Governor also since they are column headings.
 * I prefer the opening paragraph at the Featured List of Governors of Arizona
 * ("The Governor of Arizona is the head of the executive branch of Arizona's state government and the commander-in-chief of the state's military forces. The governor has a duty to enforce state laws, and the power to either approve or veto bills passed by the Arizona Legislature, to convene the legislature, and to grant pardons, except in cases of treason and impeachment." Consider adjusting some of the linking in the lead. Iowa State Legislature could be piped to remove "Iowa State" (quick turnaround of the word). "state's military forces" is two links but initially could read as one. Also, "National Guard" might be better than "military forces".

Cptnono (talk) 23:45, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Consider notable governors (possibly from the lead) next to the table
 * Would it be useful to have any sorting function in the tale? Party is the only one that jumps out since I don't think it is possible or necessary to view it in reverse chronological order.
 * The redlink in the last footnote is not needed. Also needs sourcing.

- SchroCat (talk) 07:44, 13 January 2015 (UTC)


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