Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Presidents of the United States/archive1
List of Presidents of the United States edit
Update: This is now a stand-alone article. Please disregard the introductory comments of the original nomination, which follows below. --MarkSweep 06:16, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
This is an embedded list within the President_of_the_United_States aricle, and, as I had said on the criteria talk page, embedded lists, IMHO, just like other lists, play an important role and should be eligible (there is no specification as of yet, but I think there is general agreement on this matter). In any case, a well-laid out and easy-to-read list (with colors for parties), with references, a good lead section (which is an article in itself), all blue links, and pictures within the article itself. Quite a deserving list. --Dmcdevit 06:06, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
- Support This is a finite list for which information is readily available and which is both encyclopedic and presents a flavor of the treatment of a very common list for comparison across reference resources. Courtland 04:41, 2005 May 29 (UTC)
Object - sorry (oh dear - three objectts :( ) - As I said on the talk page, I don't think we can feature lists unless they are free-standing articles, not embedded in other articles. We would not have a section as a featured article. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:52, 29 May 2005 (UTC)- I don't know how I missed your comment :), I guess I just looked to the bottom. Well I would support a move of the list, per your suggestion, to its own article anyway, as the article is quite long. I'm hesitant to do it myself, because it means we're going to have to make a lead section and references and pictures, etc., also, and this is not my area of expetise. Anyone else want to give it a start? --Dmcdevit 17:35, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
- Update: It's now a stand-alone list with pictures. --MarkSweep 01:32, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
- Support as stand alone list. Dsmdgold 01:41, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
- Note: the new list needs references and a (better) lead. --Dmcdevit 06:29, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
- I've added references from the POTUS article. --MarkSweep 06:53, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
Comment: will support if lead is expanded.Support now. Filiocht | Blarneyman 07:29, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC) Filiocht | Blarneyman 14:16, May 31, 2005 (UTC)- I've expaned the lead paragraphs with what I believe is relevant background information for this list. --MarkSweep 00:16, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Support - fantastic list, well done--Sophitus 01:31, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
- Just to be clear I've stricken my nomination for the old list and am placing my support for the new one here. --Dmcdevit 01:56, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Support (see above for reasons)Superm401 | Talk 02:44, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
- Support. This meets all the criteria and looks outstanding. --Theo (Talk) 09:20, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Support. — Paul August ☎ 03:45, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
- Support --Spangineer (háblame) 15:48, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Support Tuf-Kat 01:21, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Support, comprehensive list with enough facts. Phoenix2 15:54, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Support. I had wondered whether there was a need for a key to the colours used, but I think it's self-evident. OpenToppedBus - Talk 11:50, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. The list duplicates the embedded one on President_of_the_United_States#Office-holders. -- User:Docu
- Does President of the United States need its own list? Can't it cross-refer to this list instead? -- ALoan (Talk) 18:14, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I had originally created Template:Presidents of the United States to better coordinate between President of the United States and this list (which was split off during the early phases of this nomination; see comments above). Later I removed the list from President of the United States, but after discussion on its talk page, someone added a slightly different version (without pictures or footnotes, and using a different CSS style) back into the already rather long POTUS article. If you think the duplication is unnecessary, please join the discussion on the POTUS talk page. --MarkSweep 13:54, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Does President of the United States need its own list? Can't it cross-refer to this list instead? -- ALoan (Talk) 18:14, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Object I am not a US citzen, I have no idea what the colour coding means. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:27, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I don't think the average US citizen would know what the colors mean, since many of the 19th century parties no longer exist and there are no standard conventions one can follow. Rather, it is assumed that people will look at the listed party affiliations and notice that they correspond to certain colors. It's not the case that there is a deeper meaning behind the color scheme that would only be intelligible to US citizens. I was about to say that the colors are self-explanatory in the context of the list, but clearly that's not the case. --MarkSweep 13:54, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Is this an unactionable objection, try as I might, I can think of no way that the nominator can turn TBSDY into an American citizen. Filiocht | Blarneyman 10:48, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
- Hint - there is a corelation between the colour and a president's political party (which is already expressly noted). -- ALoan (Talk) 16:00, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I don't think the average US citizen would know what the colors mean, since many of the 19th century parties no longer exist and there are no standard conventions one can follow. Rather, it is assumed that people will look at the listed party affiliations and notice that they correspond to certain colors. It's not the case that there is a deeper meaning behind the color scheme that would only be intelligible to US citizens. I was about to say that the colors are self-explanatory in the context of the list, but clearly that's not the case. --MarkSweep 13:54, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Support I like it, although I agree with Ta bu shi da yu that it would be useful to have some brief comments about what the parties mean, jguk 13:44, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)