Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Lieutenant Governors of Wisconsin


 * 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 07:37, 8 March 2008.

List of Lieutenant Governors of Wisconsin
I've been doing a lot of work to bring this up to Featured status, and I think it's finally ready, being comparable to Featured lists of governors (eg, Kentucky, Wisconsin, Colorado); I believe that it is comprehensive, well-referenced and otherwise meets the criteria. —Salmar (talk) 03:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

 Conditional support Otherwise it looks like a really good list. Regards. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 13:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment an excellent list. A note or two...
 * Not keen at all on the really small text used in the table. This works against our readers who aren't well-sighted.
 * Removed &lt;small&gt; tags in the table
 * I would prefer to see something other than the almost missable asterisk in the high offices table.
 * The asterisks seem to be somewhat "traditional" in these tables in the Governors lists, but I changed it to the same sort of lettered footnotes used elsewhere
 * But minor points. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments! —Salmar (talk) 14:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Support - minor concerns were addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you —Salmar (talk) 18:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't like the use of "and the like" in note [B]
 * Changed it to simply "resignations and deaths", for the moment, although I will change this soon: technically Spooner only served "½" a term for a different reason, although I am working on thinking of a way to word that reason concisely
 * Echoing The Rambling Man's comment re the asterisk, and also dislike "otherwise left office to take." - To take what? It seems like an unfinished sentence.
 * I believe the sentence was syntactically correct, although it no longer matters, as the asterisks have been replaced with footnotes, and the sentence has been removed as unneeded
 * Thank you! —Salmar (talk) 14:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

--Golbez (talk) 17:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comments: Why have you switched refs and {ref}s? :( Hm, I guess I can see why.. because there's much less bibliography on lieutenant governors, it helps if each date is cited. And if you'd used {ref}s for references, you'd have run out of letters. I wonder if the devs will ever get around to giving the people what they want and giving us multiple reference classes? Sigh. Anyway.
 * It's true that I would have run out of letters (although I only noticed that now); the actual reason was that I am slightly obsessed with making sure new footnotes were introduced in alphabetical order, and that was difficult to do when I was adding refs all over the place.
 * By the way, is there anywhere I can voice my support for the multiple reference class idea?
 * Last I checked, someone had taken up the job of coding it, but that was a couple of months ago or so. It's somewhere on bugzilla. I'd give you the link if bugzilla were working. --Golbez (talk) 19:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Do we need the history of the land? That was included in the lists of governors because the governor is the chief executive, and I started that idea just to show the progression of leadership of the land. The lieutenant governor is not chief executive, and while the secretary of the territory is a somewhat analogous position, I'm not sure if it's needed to be mention any more than a short blurb in perhaps the intro. But this isn't a sticking point.
 * I definitely think that the Secretaries of Wisconsin Territory should be mentioned; do you think the references to the others should be cut out entirely?
 * Definitely the secretaries of WI territory, but I don't think we really need to link to all the others...
 * Done —Salmar (talk) 01:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it would be best if you assigned reference [F] to all of the pre-1979 acting sessions, instead of just the first. It comes across weird otherwise, since the reference is singular but the text within it is plural.
 * Done
 * A small bit in the intro about what happens if the office is vacant would be good; does the governor have the ability to appoint someone new? Can someone ascend to be full or acting lieutenant governor automatically?
 * I thought that was there ....... it seems I removed it when creating the Lieutenant Governor of Wisconsin article; I'll put a brief note in about it; unfortunately I have to run somewhere in a few minutes, so it won't be until tonight. =/
 * THEN I FAIL THIS! Or wait, no, I could simply wait a little while...
 * Done; sorry for taking so long —Salmar (talk) 01:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I know we include 'the governor is/is not term limited' on governor lists, but since there are no term limits for Lt. Govs in Wisconsin, this seems superfluous in ref [Q]. Perhaps changing it to "there are no term limits" or something better written would be better.
 * Removed entirely; it's superfluous with what's in the lead
 * I might have to adopt the ref idea from the 'other high offices held' table for the other lists. This is the first article I've seen with three classes of footnotes (though I attempted one in my early congressional delegation lists).
 * Actually, this pre-List of Secretaries of Wisconsin Territory version had four! =P
 * You're a sick, sick person, and I love you.
 * Erm ... thanks? XP —Salmar (talk) 01:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No "living lieutenant governors" table? Is this oversight, or deliberate?
 * Deliberate; the only source I can find with bios of all the lieutenant governors is the Office of the Lieutenant Governor site, and they don't mention the deaths of at least one (two? I don't remember) of the lt. gov.s who is, in fact, dead. So I omitted it as impossible/difficult to reliably source
 * My only 'source' for the governor lists is the articles themselves, but then again, a former governor dying will usually garner some amount of national press, whereas a lieutenant governor will get state at best.
 * Excellent scholar work on references [H], and excellent table management explained in [G].
 * I'm glad you like [H]; figuring that out was irritating beyond belief. Searching through newspapers from 1864 and scanned pictures of books just as old is ... tedious.
 * You should see my Hawaii Governor list, the worst part was when typos crept in to the New York Times' OCR. I was at one point searching for Hawaifan governors. In fact, go now and vote. Do it. Now.
 * Thanks for your commetns! —Salmar (talk) 18:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No porblem! --Golbez (talk) 19:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Support, excellent work. --Golbez (talk) 02:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you =) —Salmar (talk) 14:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.