Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of current members of the Iowa Senate/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates
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 The Rambling Man 21:06, 2 December 2012 [1].

List of current members of the Iowa Senate edit

List of current members of the Iowa Senate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Philosopher Let us reason together. 06:26, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it's a good list and I may make some more like it (I've got the House one waiting in the wings). And because I've been around for a while without making any featured content. Figured it was just about time I tried. As an FYI, there's a companion gallery at Commons. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 06:26, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  • The article's name may even violate WP:RELTIME. It says that words like "current" shouldn't be used, I see this used lots of places in the list, including the name even
    • WP:RELTIME doesn't apply to titles; I've removed it elsewhere and added appropriate {{as of}} templates to make the date clear.
  • "U.S. State" State shouldn't be in capitals, per MOS:CAPS
    • Fixed I've removed a wikilink and shifted another. The full name of Iowa is "State of Iowa" so caps are appropriate here. (Alternatively, I could just remove "the U.S. State of".)
  • "2011 – 2013" should be changed to "2011–13", without that space, per WP:YEAR
    • Fixed
  • "84th General Assembly" should be in bold per MOS:BOLD
    • You mean "shouldn't"? Fixed
  • "four-year" no hypten needed
  • "vacant" in image captions should be capitals
    • Fixed
  • Tables don't meet WP:ACCESS, add scope cols and rows to ensure it does
    • Notsure I tried to do this, but wasn't sure how to add scop cols and rows to a sortable table. Can you point me to an example?
      • Take a peak throughout the whole WP:ACCESS, it explains fully there. But, here's what I can tell you. To the main headers, you add ! scope="col" through all of them, then for the main parameter of the inside table, add ! scope="row". It is then showed in gray for that. It is actually used for screen readers and some text-only browsers. If you would like to know an example, please see ‎School District 53 Okanagan Similkameen's table for an example, it correctly use the scope cols and rows. TBrandley 03:56, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The tables formatting and use of color, doesn't also meet WP:ACCESS and WP:COLOR, as well, these colors, particularity
    • Notsure I wonder if you are unfamiliar with the best practices for color in political articles and lists?
      • Notdone If you're referring to coloring the template rows, this schema has been used on other FLs, is widely used on political lists in general, and there is no information being conveyed by the color that isn't also conveyed by text.
      • Wontfix With regard to the particular colors, these are the standard {{Party shading}} colors; as such they 1) have been reviewed (and changed) for ACCESS concerns in the past and 2) can't be further changed without developing consensus, as {{Party shading/Democratic}} alone has 8,311 transclusions.
        • I don't need to be familiar with political articles and lists, I need to be familar with the Manual of Style (MoS), and I am. The colors are very bright, don't pass WP:ACCESS or WP:COLOR for blind peoples, screen readers and such. Also, it doesn't matter if the schema has been used on other FLs, there were most likely promoted before this new guideline rule when into effect. It is very new. As said further below, you can replace the colors with template such as {{dagger}} and see WP:BADEMPTHASIS. Colors shouldn't even be used, but replaced. The MoS is very clear on this for access. TBrandley 03:56, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • See reply to Albacore below. The remaining points about color, daggers, etc. are not well taken, as they ignore the fact that there is no information offered by the color that isn't also offered by the text (the use of such colors is explicitly allowed by the MoS.) --Philosopher Let us reason together. 04:38, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first table shouldn't use unneeded bolding, see WP:BADEMPHASIS, remove or replace, though I don't even think needed
    • Notsure I don't know what you're getting at - the three headers: "affiliation", "members", and "total" are the only bolded words in the table.
      • Yes, exactly. It shouldn't be in bold, per WP:BADEMPHASIS also. What's the reasoning for the bolding? Even if there is reasoning, it needs to be replaced by {{dagger}} or something, as already said for other concerns also. TBrandley 03:56, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tables don't meet WP:DTT, add table captions to ensure it does
    • Done
  • The alt text of the images are not correct. "Alt text is meant for readers who cannot see an image, such as blind readers and readers who use a text or mobile browser. It should summarize an image's purpose, and should not duplicate its caption, if it were to have one, or does." All images do duciplate a possible caption, or actual caption used.
    • I've Fixed the map, per WP:ALT#Maps and diagrams. Notsure For the official photos, I couldn't think what else to put - should I just blank the alt text?
      • No, not a good idea; it is part of the featured list criteria, "It complies with the Manual of Style and its supplementary pages." If you don't know, see WP:ALT or request help at the help desk even. For example, just an example, instead of "David Beckham" say "a football player", that's just an example, but it would be something like that, just for different pictures. TBrandley 03:56, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • My text was properly descriptive, noting that the images were official images (the reason the images were chosen). Text such as "a football player" (here "a politician") would be inappropriate as such is blatantly obvious from the context of the page. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 03:21, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There should be an actual legend section, explaining what the colors are for, rather than it being in a caption. A caption should say "This is the stuff that is in stuff" like that. Colors shouldn't even be used per WP:BADEMPHASIS, replace with dagger using {{dagger}} template or something also for WP:ACCESS
    • Notsure I don't follow. The instuctions for {{legend}} indicate that it is supposed to be used in a caption. This is, in fact, an extremely common use of the template - and some images actually have the legend built into the image itself. I can't hardly remove the colors from the map and the widespread acceptance of colors in the rows has been described above. I don't see how a dagger would meet any of these purposes in any case.
      • As said above, colors don't meet WP:COLOR, WP:ACCESS, all said above. See List of Grey's Anatomy cast members, a recently promoted featured list, its legend is fine, how about something like that for this? Cheers, TBrandley 03:56, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I could add a second legend, reflecting the colors used in the table, above the table if absolutely necessary - having two legends for essentially similar colors seems like overkill, though. As for the map's legend, its usage is correct per {{legend}}. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 04:49, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • After the colors are removed and replaced, "N/A" should now use the {{n/a}} template
    • Notsure I didn't put the other fields in a templated box, so why would I put "N/A" in a templated box? It's inconsistent.
      • No, not really. It says "N/A", so it is okay. It is used in plenty of recently promoted featured lists, as well as others. There is a point for this one, but not for the others. TBrandley 03:56, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In see also, why is the first link in italics?
  • Don't use ; semi-colons as it is an WP:ACCESS concern. Replace with actual headers, like === General ===
    • Fixed
  • Per WP:DASH, as seen in many reference titles, hyptens should be en-dashes
    • Fixed
  • Can you add portals related to this subject using {{portal box}} or {{portal bar}}
    • Done

TBrandley 19:22, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've done several of your suggestions. I'll admit to being perplexed about several others, though, as they seem to fly in the face of political style consensus. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 03:08, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:
  • What benefit does the list gain from the presence of colors? Since you have the party affiliation, I would be in favor of removing the colors to use !scope row tags per WP:ACCESS. I am not aware of any preexisting consensus, however.
  • The purpose is to provide a visual/graphical representation of the legislative chamber, providing an at-a-glance feel for how the partisan divisions work out. This works especially well in sortable tables, since you can re-arrange the organization of the legislators. This is not an ACCESS violation, because the "Party" column provides that information in the text.
  • That the colors are less than perfect is because there are a great many current and historic parties (see Category:Political party colour templates and its subpages). In order that there be a clear distinction where any two colors which may be placed next to each other are placed to each other, while being encyclopedically accurate as to color-affiliation of the parties, some unfortunate colors have had to be used (see, for example, Template:United States political party shading). As noted above, they have been reviewed for compliance with WP:ACCESS in the past and attempts to change/remove them since then have not gained consensus (a recent attempt, Template talk:United States political party shading#Accessibility, was actually advertised at the accessibility talk page and still didn't result in a change). Additionally, the fact that the colors are so widely used (transclusion example above) and that they are fully protected indicates their widespread community acceptance. Frankly, it is beyond FL's purview (and a violation of WP:CONSENSUS) to attempt to change that consensus here.
  • Finally, you can use both scope=row and the color templates, so no issue there. (Scopes added now.)
  • TLDR: No ACCESS violation, consensus including input from the folks at the accessability page, and scope=row is compatible with them. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 04:32, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refs 1, 5, and 6 need the format parameter indicative of a PDF file, like reference 2 has. Albacore (talk) 21:50, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note "Graphics are discouraged, as they slow down the page load time." Per the instruction above. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 10:46, 15 November 2012 (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/List_of_current_members_of_the_Iowa_Senate/archive1&oldid=1138486344"