Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Governors of Maryland/Archive1

List of Governors of Maryland[edit]

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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 15 days, 1 support, 1 oppose. Fail. Juhachi 12:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Yes, another Maryland list) Now improved with references! The best list of obscure historical politicians from a minor American state that money can buy. Seriously, though - good list - glad to make any suggested improvements. Geraldk 15:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first picture I checked (the last in the article) has copyright issues. Rmhermen 16:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~
- ~~Most images used as FU for the last 30 years are probably going to be deleted at some points. Such prominent individuals most likely have PD portraits somewhere.~~
- ~~At least one is outright challenged~~
- ~~Color coding is not clear enough (the blue and green are too similar on flat screens)~~
- ~~It's also ambiguous: the same party is given different colors, and "no party" candidates are given in at least 3 colors~~
- ~~An actual color chart at the top of the "Governors under Statehood" section is probably a good idea.~~
- ~~The Maryland seal image also need a proper FU statement. U.S. seals are trademarks, and not subject to the time limits of copyright.~~
Circeus 17:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there aren't any fair use images created within the last 30 years used in that particular article. The only one was added very recently, and I have just deleted it as RFU. In addition, the only other fair use images are for three governors in the mid 20th Century for which I could not find any free use images, and who are deceased. --Tom (talk - email) 22:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've fixed most of the color issues, including the mislabeling and the blue/green issue. FYI, I believe the same shades of blue and green appear in List of Presidents of Venezuela, which is FL, and which might need to be corrected as well if this is a problem. Added color key. Also, not sure if the seal image has appropriate rationale now, so please check and let me know. Sorry for the delay in responding - was out of town. Geraldk 21:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted the color changes. Too similar? These colors are the standard used in Wikipedia for U.S. political parties, so it sounds like there may be a problem with the settings on Circeus's monitor. Also, as an LCD monitor owner myself (which I assume is the "flat screen"), these colors stand out perfectly fine. I'd suggest adjusting your contract, brightness, or other settings if these look alike. --Tom (talk - email) 04:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But I added the key back in, since it's useful. Geraldk 04:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't strike my arguments. I can do it myself. Circeus 18:34, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support I tentatively changed the color key. Feel free to revert. Circeus 18:34, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Key looks great. Geraldk 20:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The original was taken from the List of Chicago Landmarks (which I later also converted), but then I remembered about {{legend}}, although I wasn't sure if it included a bordering option. Turnedout there was one, making the color more visible. Circeus 23:12, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (for now) due to the presence of redlinks (as per WP:WIAFL 1a(1) "group of existing articles"). These are all for per-statehood governors, and I am prepared to belive they aren't notable enough to justify articles. If this is the case, then their names shoudl be de-linked. If they are notable, they then they must have an article (even if it's just a stub) for this to become a FL. Also, the references should be a sperate section to the notes. (You may find it useful to use <ref> tages). That aside, this is a sound list, and I will be happy to support once these issues have been addressed. Tompw (talk) (review) 20:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I had dropped the redlinks earlier, and User:Tom put them back in, saying that redlinks are OK because these guys are notable. I assume he meant that they could, and should at some point, have their own articles. That aside, my reading of WP:WIAFL, based on the phrase "for example" is that a collection of existing articles is merely one reason to have a list, and not a definitive requirement, and I would think this list, with the redlinks, would fit in under !a(3). Geraldk 23:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]