Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of members of the Swedish Riksdag, 2002-2006

List of members of the Riksdag, 2002-2006

Well, I believe this mighty fine list fails none of the criteria laid out. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 11:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, hello anyone? Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 10:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~: I think you should expand the introduction and add a key for the colors. Spy1986 12:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There. Better? What more can be done? Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 12:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Good work. Spy1986 15:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yay! Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 15:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So... ehh... this will fail since noone votes, right? :( Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 12:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Are there any free-use images of members available? Including one or two in the space on the right hand side might be beneficial. Is there any reasoning behind the order in which constituencies are listed? Oldelpaso 20:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The list is ordered per seat numbers. I would presume that the seats are numbered row-wise, and while MPs are seated constituency-wise, that results in them being spread out when listing them in one column. I'm not sure I conveyed my point so good you understood what I was trying to explain, but this image might help to see my point: Image:Riksdag assembly hall 2006.jpg.
  Other than that, there are Public Domain-images available of every single MP available on [1] (and also uploaded on commons). All existing articles on current MPs contain images. Do you think I should add a picture of each MP somewhere in the table? That would make the rows very high or the pictures very small. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 21:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think I understand what you mean about the order. I don't mean an image of every one, rather two or three prominent MPs, in a similar manner to List of Sweden international footballers. Oldelpaso 22:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Great. How about adding the party leaders (marked with italics in the list) to the right? Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 22:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Images look good. The party list could perhaps be ordered by number of seats held though. Oldelpaso 20:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, perhaps. Help me decide here - should they be ordered by number of seats held (the party leader images to the right are), or along the traditional left-right scale of politics? By number of seats is perhaps better? Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 20:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - (de-indent) Political ideology is a subjective measure, an objective measure such as number of seats or alphabetical order would be better. Oldelpaso 21:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's ordered per number of seats now. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 21:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ for now, due to lack of images (criterium #3 and insufficient additional information (1f). The image issue has been mentioned above, and I agree that adding prominent members (e.g. party leaders, holders of major offices) would be sufficient. For "additional information", I really feel there should be something about the voting system used... the constituencies seem to be multi-member - do they use first past the post or STV or some other form of proportioanl reprenentation or what? Is the Riksdag unicameral? Also, how about including seats held by each party in the colour key? (Minor point: format the two web references using {{cite web}}). This list is fundamentally sound - it just needs a bit of polishing and tweaking to bring it up to FL standard. Tompw (talk) 00:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, I'll get right to it. I'll drop a note here when I'm done. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 13:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - There. How about that? Should I include more prominent members? I would like to include some kind of "seat map", but I can't find any, or enough information to draw one myself. If I drop by the Riksdag in Stockholm some time, I might figure that out. But for now, that's not available. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 15:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Damnit, now I'm feeling all forgotten again. If User:Tompw drops by, evaluates my changes, and change his stance to support, this list will pass, right? Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 23:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Support now - good work. :-) Tompw (talk) 12:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Wooohoo! Now, I'll have to wait until the 23rd for this to be closed, right? I'm used to AfDs, they take half the time. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 12:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        That's because the commentry at FLC is twice as good. Tompw (talk) 13:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support / Fred-Chess 21:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - sorry - mainly because there are just too many redlinks for me - I would estimate as many as half to two thirds of the members. The lead is also a bit short. Should we have some sort of break down by region? (e.g. Stockholm Municipality elected x members of the A party and y members of the B party; ... and in Norrbotten County ...). It would also be nice to have a description of the government (e.g. formed by a coalition of the A party, B paty and C party). In addition, it would be nice to make the table sortable, so you could group by parties as well as by seat number. And I am not sure I like the title with a comma (what format is used by other lists of legislators? how about List of members of the Riksdag (2002-2006)?); and do we need to state explicity "~~Norwegian~~Swedish Riksdag" or "Riksdag of ~~Norway~~Sweden" (to avoid confusion with the Parliament of Finland)? -- ALoan (Talk) 18:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Darn. Oh well, I'll just go ahead and adress these points. First off: how do you make a table sortable? O_o
  The article title originally contained a "Swedish" (the Norwegian parliament is called the Storting), but it was removed as the similar article containing the current MPs did not have it. On the Swedish wikipedia, Riksdag is a disambiguation page as the the Parliament of Finland is called "Riksdag" in Swedish, and Swedish is a minority language in Finland. This is not the case in English and the English Wikipedia. In finnish, it's called "Eduskunta". I think the article title should be kept without "Swedish" in it.
  Regarding the comma, I don't see any reason as to why it shouldn't be there. I could move the articles if you want, but Swedish general election, 2006 and the other general elections of Sweden follow the same pattern. When I created it I named it "Members of the Riksdag 2002-2006", but Slarre moved it.
  As for the lead, I could expand it slightly tomorrow, but then again, let's not make it redundant to Swedish general election, 2006, which contains information on the election campaign, the forming of the new government etcetera.
  The redlinks are a hard one. Luckily, most of them are the subject of an on-going Wikiproject: Wikipedia:WikiProject Sweden/Members of the Riksdag (that one covers the current MPs, but a lot were re-elected), and as thus they'll be removed. I could create mini-stubs of most if not all articles very quickly, but I like to finish what I start when creating new articles.
  Uh. I'll adress the immediate points tomorrow or so, but the redlinks are a more time-consuming project. I hope you'll change your mind. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 20:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - There, the list is now sortable. I had no idea there was such a featre! However, the sorting script wasn't too happy with "colspan=2" on the header "Name", which overlapped both the color column and the name column. It caused the script to malfunction pretty badly. The only immediate solution was to let the colors have their own header, which came at the expense of having it severely widened - any suggestions on how to solve this? Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 20:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sorry, re Norway/Sweden - it is all Scandinavian to me. I accept what you say about the names in English being different. Re the comma, perhaps you are right - I always like the UK versions like this - 2005 UK general election - but I see that is a redirect. Shrug. I have struck those comments. I think the sortablity helps, but I still think a regional analysis would be useful, and redlinks is my main issue. I don't really want you to create loads of substubs; on the other hand, a substub contains more information than a redlink. There is a lot of support above - I wonder if any other editors reading this have opinions on the matter. -- ALoan (Talk) 21:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - The large proportion of redlinks doesn't matter. I don't think members of the Swedeish parliament are (in general) sufficiently notable to have their own articles. As such, I think this list is of the form "set of items whoose aren't notable enough to have individual articles", fitting in with example 3 of criterion 1a (usefulness). Tompw (talk) 22:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm going to keep creating articles from those redlinks, though. Of course I prioritize more notable MPs. Question: how is opposing on the grounds of redlinks in line with the criteria? I don't see anything about it there... some interpretation of something that I've missed? Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 23:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        See the FL criteria talk page - the criteria used to refer expressly to bluelinks, but this was revised fairly recently, although the concept is still there: either the list needs to bring together existing articles (i.e. bluelinks) or include a set of items that are not notable (so no article will be created for them). In this case, we are in the first category, I think; just that the articles have not yet been created. -- ALoan (Talk) 00:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Ah, I see now. Well, I disagree - the "redlink criterion" goes under "usefulness", and while I think the MPs are notable enough for articles, the list is useful even without articles on those as it does indeed contains a finite, complete and well-defined set of items that naturally fit together to form a significant topic of study.
        But whatever the case, fear not, for I will make the majority of them bluelinks. There are two ways I can do this, though: either I can do it like User:Plyriz once did and create loads of substub/stub articles like Alf Eriksson, or I can keep up my good work and create articles like Kent Härstedt. If the Plyriz way is what it takes to get this article featured, though, I'll do it - it'll only take a day or so. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 01:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- <--- unindent] I think it's best to create the stubs, because 1) you are planning on expanding them into decent articles and 2) someone else might come along and expand a stub. I agree the idea of creating load of stubsto get an article thorugh FL is not perfect, but all you are doing is creating articles you were planning to create anyway. Tompw (talk) 13:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'll get back when it's done then. Is it possible to place this nomination under some form of hiatus or soemthing? Concerns are being actively addressed now...Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 14:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - It can hang on for a few days more - it is nearly there. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I just created 30 new stubs, more incoming. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 22:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What do you say now? I've created, I don't know, perhaps 80 new articles? A damn lot anyways. Could create some more, though, if it's needed. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 21:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, well done! But I can't support this yet - I would estimate that somewhat over half of the people are still redlinks. Can you get it down to a third or a quarter? It would be even better if you could create fuller articles for the people, rather than stubs. There is no rush to get this featured - I have been intending to find the information to complete List of Test cricket grounds and get it featured since June 2005! -- ALoan (Talk) 16:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now it was listed as a failure. :O Ah well, I'll drop by again when that list contains 0 redlinks. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 13:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't let that put you off - it is a good list and will succeed next time, I am sure. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 13:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]