Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of MPs elected in the United Kingdom general election, 1832/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 not promoted by Dabomb87 23:30, 30 December 2010.

List of MPs elected in the United Kingdom general election, 1832

 * Nominator(s): Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:21, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I think that it meets all the criteria, and I want to subject it to thorough scrutiny before applying the same approach to other lists in Category:Lists of MPs elected in United Kingdom general elections, starting with other elections from the same period which currently have no lists. It is a complete list of all the Members of Parliament (MPs) elected at the first general election after the United Kingdom's Great Reform Act, which marked the first step on the democratisation of the UK's election process. It is fully referenced, with links to the primary sources as well as to secondary sources, so it is easily verifiable by even the casual reader. It is structured to be sortable under several different headings, allowing it to be used to group MPs in many different ways.

To assist maintainability, I built it using templates and sub-lists. When I created it in July I had some concerns that this might cause problems with maintenance or server-load (see discussion on talk page), but four months later that seems to be working fine.

My only outstanding concern is that the introduction may perhaps be a little too verbose, and may include some material which might better placed in United Kingdom general election, 1832. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:21, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose from KV5


 * Some major issues, the largest one mentioned specifically by the nominator. Per WP:TMP: "Templates should not masquerade as article content in the main article namespace; instead, place the text directly into the article." We have longer featured lists than this, so this breakdown into templates should be removed.
 * Actually that quote follows the "With the template namespace it is possible to" bit of prose. This isn't in the template namespace but the article namespace e.g. List of MPs elected in the United Kingdom general election, 1832/Constituencies A–B. By using clever only/noincludes the references also display on both article namespace pages. This is just a transclusion. Note many television episode lists use transclusion and, although I now would oppose the use of transclusion in those cases, I see no problem with it here. Without these subpages I daresay a split may be recommended. (Note this is the method I was suggesting for your roster list KV5). Rambo's Revenge (talk)  14:24, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If it's only a transclusion, that's a bit better. I was thrown by the template-edit code when I looked at the inner workings of the list. That being said, I still see no reason why it couldn't be included as prose/straight code in this list. &mdash; KV5  •  Talk  •  14:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The use of the templates is to simplify maintenance. By structuring the entries using templates, it is much clearer how each entry is constructed than would be the case with using raw table markup. This also reduces the risk of formatting errors. The reason for using sub-lists is again to simplify maintenance: it saves the editor from having to edit a single, undivided section of thousands of lines of code, which (because of the number of templates involved) takes ages to save. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 230k bytes! Also it did take a while to save. Rambo's Revenge (talk)  14:49, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Point. &mdash; KV5  •  Talk  •  14:53, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * WP:COLOR violations: there is no key explaining what the color (or indeed, any of the formatting elements) means.
 * MOS:BOLD: Do not use bold for emphasis in tables.
 * Featured lists no longer start with "This is a list of...". See recently promoted lists for examples of more engaging leads.
 * Remove all spaces between references and their respective entries.

These are just a few major issues that have to be resolved before a proper review can be made. &mdash; KV5  •  Talk  •  13:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC) The most logical structure for each row is keep the columns relating to the constituency beside each other (constit name, seats, county, country), and similarly the columns related to the MP (name, party)are grouped beside each other. However, the two key items in each row are the name of the constituency and the name of the MP, and the bolding makes it easier to pick out those two key items from the subsiduary data. I am aware that it breaches MOS:BOLD, but I suggest that this is one of the "occasional exceptions" where a breach of the guidelines is beneficial. I'm interested in the scope="row" parameter, which by defining structure offers the possibility that tools for visually-impaired readers can utilise it, but have not used it before, but I am studying the W3C documentation. Can you point me to any other lists on wikipedia which use the scope="row" attribute? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
 * Thanks for the prompt feedback.
 * I have addressed the templates issue above, and hope that's resolved.
 * I have removed the spaces between references and their respective entries. I always do that in prose, but in the list I thought that the spaces added clarity. If that breaches the MOS, then it's fine to have it removed.
 * On bolding, I am not wedded to it, but before removing it may I ask for you to consider that in this case the bolding assists the reader?
 * I will add a colour table now.
 * My brain can't think of a more engaging intro at the moment, but I would welcome suggestions. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:53, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Regarding the bold issue: if this "assists the reader", how does it then help visually-impaired readers? I, as a reader, see no added utility from it, and all would be much better served by the addition of scope="row" parameters to add the necessary row-headers (which would be bold if the plainrowheaders attribute is not implemented). &mdash; KV5  •  Talk  •  14:55, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You're right that it doesn't assist visually-impaired readers. However, it impedes them in no way, and as above I think it assist readers without visual impairment.
 * Philadelphia Phillies all-time roster (A). &mdash; KV5  •  Talk  •  15:26, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Oppose just a quick skim... That's enough for now. If this lot gets addressed, I'll happily re-visit for a comprehensive review. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:48, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't start with "This is a list of..."
 * Avoid bold links per WP:MOSBOLD in the lead.
 * Lead is weak, needs to summarise the article entirely.
 * Avoid starting sentences with numbers, e.g. "1832 was ..."
 * Russell's image caption is a complete sentence so needs a full stop.
 * "For a list of results which were overturned, see below: overturned elections." we just don't do this, the "see below" thing, we have "See also" sections and see also templates.
 * ""Conservative". [2]" remove space between punctuation and ref. Check others, especially those in the table.
 * No need to have bold MP names in the table, contravenes the MOS.
 * "Edit by initial letter of constituencies" - why would a reader want to "edit" by an initial letter?
 * If the initial order of the list is alphabetical by constituency, why does it change considerably when ordering by constituency?

Comment
 * Pages in the article namespace cannot be Subpages of others. Even with the forward-slash List of MPs elected in the United Kingdom general election, 1832/Constituencies A–B is not a subpage of List of MPs elected in the United Kingdom general election, 1832 even though it is presented as such. List of MPs elected in the United Kingdom general election, 1832 (Constituencies A–B) would be okay, though. Cf WP:Do not use subpages. Matthewedwards : Chat  01:46, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Note I've closed this FLC as unsuccessful. Although the issues presented are not insurmountable, the technical aspects of them would be better resolved outside FLC (perhaps at peer review), where the nominator and reviewers can work together without time restraints. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


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