Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Mayor of San Francisco/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 by Matthewedwards 08:08, 18 July 2009 [1].

Mayor of San Francisco[edit]

Nominator(s): —Chris! ct 23:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it fulfills the FL criteria. If passed, this will be the first U.S. mayor featured list. Comments will be addressed promptly. Thanks—Chris! ct 23:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm coming at this from the perspective of creating the template used for the lists of governors, so that's the basis of most of my statements. See List of Governors of Alabama for examples of what I mention:
Resolved comments from Golbez
    • I suggest a smaller party color block; we don't need the whole cell shaded. Done
    • Vigilance People's Party needs a link, if only for having the greatest political party name ever. Done
    • Rank can be shortened to # ('rank' is an odd name for that column anyway), and centered. Done
    • Personally, I'd center everything in the table, but that's up to you.
    • While I initially resisted it, I've fallen in love with a "Terms" column, gives you a good place to note resignations, deaths, etc.
      • Don't think I can do that because the info is not avaliable—Chris! ct 00:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You can use multiple groups of <refs instead of relying on {{refs, now.
      • What do you mean?—Chris! ct 00:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Instead of using the {{ref and {{note system, you can do (as seen in the example article linked above) <ref group='group name goes here'> to set apart certain refs in another group. --Golbez (talk) 01:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, I am more comfortable with the note system I am using here. If there isn't a pressing need to change, I prefer to leave it like this.—Chris! ct 01:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Personally I don't think you need the term lengths in the 'other offices' table, and I almost said I didn't like using brs, but that might be better than my current method of using commas.
    • You have no way of showing if the mayor resigned to take those higher offices or vice versa; is this on purpose? I'm not saying it's required, I'm just always looking for ways to improve my template. :) Done
    • Needs more photos. Done
    • I'm a little confused by the succession rules. The article says the President of the Board of Supervisors acts as mayor until a special election, but the notes on several successions say that the person was "chosen" by the Board of Supervisors. Did the law change?
      • Um, now that you mention it, I don't know. The city law specifies that President of the Board of Supervisors acts as mayor until an election. But other sources are telling me that the Board selected a person to fill the vacancies. Maybe the law did change, I don't know and will look it up.—Chris! ct 00:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ok, my mistake actually. This says the city law requires that the President of the Board of Supervisors acts as mayor until the Board select a person as a replacement to serve out the previous term. Thi is the case if the mayor did not designate an acting mayor.—Chris! ct 00:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • So, in this case I assume the acting mayors are not officially listed? --Golbez (talk) 01:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's all for now. I rather like this list. --Golbez (talk) 23:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe I have addressed most comments. Some are left unaddressed because of my preference.—Chris! ct 03:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ongoing and new concerns:
    • I'm guessing Whelan's start date is referenced separately because it's a day separated from the end of the previous term; is it known why there was a gap, and does the previous term's end date need specific sourcing as well?
      • It is there because I didn't have ref for the whole list before and I tried to find individual dates. Now that a ref is find, it is not necessary and can be removed.—Chris! ct 00:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • The refs for Whelan and Taylor are still there. --Golbez (talk) 16:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The City and County weren't always one, were they? The changeover date should be mentioned, as it subtly changed the status of the mayor, since mayors of counties are pretty rare. San Francisco says the city and county were consolidated in 1856, but consolidated city-county says the city was established before the county. Perhaps it truly means 'established' and not 'incorporated', since the first counties in California were established in January 1850, and San Francisco was incorporated in April 1850.
    • The American Party you've linked to is a modern one. "Know Nothing" changed names to "American" in 1855; these names should be (and are) reflected in the table, but the links all need to go to Know Nothing, and the color needs to be the same as well.
      • Wow, I don't have a clue about all these party history. :) Do you want me to remove the American Party link?
        • Change the link to Know Nothing, but keep the text as American. It doesn't count as overlinking, since readers are not likely to know they're the same party. --Golbez (talk) 20:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I almost wrote, "Mayor of Salem, Mass., isn't important enough to list" but since for the governor lists I list all higher and equivalent (other governorships), it makes sense to list equivalent offices here as well - being mayor of other cities.
    • Might I suggest using dedicated columns for California State Assemblyman and Senator, like in the governor lists? ... then again that makes it difficult to include term lengths, which you want to keep. So suggestion made but adherence not required. :)
      • Same here, hope I resolve everything properly.—Chris! ct 22:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's all I've got for now. I continue to be impressed; at least most states have a large store of information about their past governors, I can imagine the process is probably much harder for cities. --Golbez (talk) 16:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
Weak Oppose from Truco (talk · contribs) -- couple of issues
General
  • Dabs, external links check out fine.
Lead
  • I recommend that the lead state who the first mayor was. Done
  • Link to runoff election Done
Elections
  • The mayor is usually sworn in on the January 8 following the election. -- It would help to know when the elections are held, eg. November? Done
  • I would link runoff to runoff election in its uses in this section.
This is a redirect to two-round system, and I already have that link in the section.—Chris! ct 22:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • These four little paragraphs can easily be made into two, because four little ones is not proper.
I made it three paragraphs. The middle paragraph is a bit unrelated to other two, that's why I didn't make it to two.—Chris! ct 22:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
List
  • There have been 42 mayoralties due to Charles James Brenham's serving two non-consecutive terms; he is counted chronologically as both the second and fourth mayor. -- The semicolon should be a colon because you are explaining the cause and effect Done
  • The longest term was that of James Rolph, who served over 18 years until his resignation to become the California governor. -- Since now the terms are limited it would help to explain why he was able to serve for so long.
Add something—Chris! ct 00:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The dates do not sort properly, you need to use the template {{dts}} for this. Done
  • I find it unnecessary to have the key for the parties since the table does basically the same thing, unless you just have the color listed instead of the color and party. Done
  • The only thing now is that 3 different parties use the color "white" (No Party, American Party, and Vigilance Party)--Truco 503 02:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's because they do not have color.—Chris! ct 20:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because this table is sortable you need to link the parties every instance or you need to remove the links and leave the key (despite the table doing the same job) Done
Images
  • I'm on a widescreen so the images run off to the next section.
Not sure what th problem is. Could you describe it in detail? On my screen, the images start at the Succession section and continue down to the Notes section on the right side.—Chris! ct 00:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Other offices held
  • I see this as a unnecessary because its not relevant to the position of Mayor of San Francisco.
Well, I modeled this after the governors FLs. And I don't think it is unnecessary since it provides more info to readers.—Chris! ct 22:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Living former mayors
  • As of June 2009[update], four former mayors are still alive. -- The month is now July =] Done
Notes
  • Note b: Link to extortion Done
  • Note c: replaces --> replaced and it should be The Board of Supervisors not The Board of Supervisor (plural) Done
  • Note d: So wouldn't that be three terms in total or was the temporary term not counted as an official term?
She finished a term as acting mayor and so it doesn't count as an official term.—Chris! ct 22:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--Truco 503 02:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support -- Previous issues clarified/resolved; list meets WP:WIAFL.--Truco 503 15:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
  • John W. Geary, who was elected in 1850" Done
  • "African-American" No hyphen. Done
  • No key explaining the color coding? I also note that the color for "no party" is the same as that of the American Party and the Vigilance People's Party (white)
Truco said that the key is redundant since party names and their corresponding color codes are already in the table. Some parties do not have color, so they are shown white.—Chris! ct 23:35, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I could be wrong, but as far as I know, copyright of image expired after a hundred years plus life of author.—Chris! ct 23:35, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Date of Birth column in the " Living former mayors" section does not sort properly. Done

Dabomb87 (talk) 21:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Rambo's Revenge (talk · contribs)
Comments from Rambo's Revenge (talk · contribs)
Prose (up to "List")
  • limited to two terms. According to the source "There shall be no limit on the non- successive terms that a person may serve." so I guess that needs to be "two successive terms" Done
  • I'll leave this up to you as hopefully it won't happen but for his term will expire on January 8, 2012. will -> is scheduled to? Done
  • as they are not winnowed by a primary election. is winnowed the right word. Winnow is to do with seperation, isn't it that additional candidates from a single party aren't excluded. Not sure how to reword since I didn't wrote this. Any ideas?
    • Well I'm not sure this bit is needed at all, but wouldn't , "as they are not excluded/eliminated by a primary election." be more correct. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 12:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I try to reword. But since I am not good at writing prose, the new sentence may not make any sense. So please let me know if that happens. :)—Chris! ct 22:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • with the lowest votes is eliminated lowest -> least Done, though I followed Dabomb's suggestion
    • Actually, it should be "fewest". Dabomb87 (talk) 00:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think either is acceptable, but I agree fewest is better :) Rambo's Revenge (talk) 12:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • If it is of any interest, "fewest" is used for countable entities (dogs, pencils, votes), while "least" is used for uncountable things (love, fear, etc.). Dabomb87 (talk) 17:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • the order of succession is followed. It seems odd to say "the" order of succession, without stating what that order is. This is based on the source. I don't know what the actual order is.
List
  • gunned down bit colloquial for my taste Reword
  • Who was Mayor on the December 5, 1869 Fixed
  • Can you also list the acting mayor that followed Otis and Moscone. I got to the notes section :)
  • Pond's term ended on January 7, 1891 & George Henry Sanderson started on January 5, 1891: I'm guessing there weren't 2 mayors for a bit and this is a mistake :) Fixed
  • Not saying it's wrong, but howcome Art Agnos finished on Jan 7, at that stage it looks like it had settled to a Jan 8 transfer day. Fixed
  • I think that you should take the small colour strips out, and colour the party cells, which would allow you to sort that column. Also, Democratic and Union Labor are difficult to distinguish by colour anyway.
I am going to do that because sorting is important although this arrangement is suggested by Truco. I can't do much about color though, since that is official party color.—Chris! ct 02:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think that is a bad idea.—Chris! ct 02:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's only because the wrong colours are being used that make the text hard to read. Try {{Party shading}} like List of Presidents of the United States uses. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 12:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd never heard of gubernatorial could it be put in layman's terms Not sure how to reword
    • As I said I don;t know what it means so I can't really help you reword it. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 12:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, it is the adjective for governor. (like mayoral for mayor). Maybe Dabomb has an idea?—Chris! ct 19:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref 21 seems to indicate it was 38–46 not 1939–1947 Fixed
Images
  • All fine. I transferred one eligible image to Commons and have PD reviewed the others.

Looking good, the only majorish change I suggested was the party column thing. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support All my issues have been resolved, and I like that clever coding that gives the appearance of colspan without losing sortability. Well done, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 10:37, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Comment - Can I ask you to cap your comments? It is getting hard to see/edit.—Chris! ct 04:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • On the party color - Since everyone has problems with the color, I will make a note on what I did. I use {{Party shading}} for the color and color the entire party cell to retain the sorting function. I didn't add a key because I feel that it is redundant. The party color already correspond with the party name in the table. Several parties do not have color at all (American Party & Vigilance People's Party), so I leave them in white. Union Labor has color on the template I previously use, but not on {{Party shading}}. So, I leave that in white also. Hope I address your concerns. Thanks—Chris! ct 22:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please put it back to how it was, with the small cells; we don't need the whole block colored in, nor do we need a key, I see that now. It can retain sorting even with a small color block, I'll make it work if you want. --Golbez (talk) 22:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The reason I did this is to satisfy User:Rambo's Revenge's comment about keeping sortability on the party column. If you can make the small cells work with the sorting function, feel free to try.—Chris! ct 22:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Done. :) --Golbez (talk) 23:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I made some more fixes. Sorting works properly now with the color now.—Chris! ct 01:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose layout issues. Take a look at here to see how this page is viewed on IE. I tried all screen resolutions from 800x600 to 1440x900, there's no change in the layout. BUT When I took out the <div> tags, the layout got normal.--Crzycheetah 16:26, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then the option is have it like that, or screw up the section edit links. Interestingly, I've never heard this complaint before; what version of IE is this with? --Golbez (talk) 16:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Rambo's Revenge already made a change here. Did it help?—Chris! ct 18:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • (edit conflict) I think I fixed this. I switched to my IE browser to check this out, and had the same problem as Crzycheetah. I've managed to fix it for me there and I now have no problems in IE or FF so I guess it worked okay. Let me know if it still isn't right. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/Mayor_of_San_Francisco/archive1&oldid=1143899120"