Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/United States Secretary of Transportation/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 The Rambling Man 14:00, 3 February 2010 [1].

United States Secretary of Transportation[edit]

Nominator(s): Reywas92Talk 23:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

I'm sorry there aren't a ton a references, but the two with the list and department information were pretty good. I've tried to include all relevant information, but I'm happy to research something further without going into too much detail. Reywas92Talk 23:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And, to clarify, I'm in the Wikicup. Reywas92Talk 03:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comment - Should acting secretar(ies) be included? I am asking because based on my research on this list, Maria Cino was the acting Secretary of Transportation briefly and she isn't on the list.—Chris!c/t 00:10, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer not to because most did so with limited duties for only a few days or weeks as an interim until the newly-appointed Secretary took office, when they returned to the usual Deputy. They are rightly not included in most other lists, and they disrupt the table. Reywas92Talk 00:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I suppose you are right.—Chris!c/t 22:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments.

  1. Should not the article be renamed to List if United States Secretaries of Transportation?
No. As Chris said, this is also still the top article for the position, and a split is a 3b violation. The other secretary lists are also this way.
  1. The salary of the Secretary of Transportation is $199,700. This sentence is out of places and should be moved to the end of the second paragraph.
Done. Thanks! Reywas92Talk 22:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ruslik_Zero 20:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it should be renamed since this article is about the position as well. And per criteria 3b, both United States Secretaries of Transportation and List of United States Secretaries of Transportation should not be split and should be combined as one article.—Chris!c/t 22:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am satisfied with the answers, so I am supporting. Ruslik_Zero 19:25, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Arsenikk (talk) 11:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Nice list, but two things strike me: 1) It would be natural to include the party of the minister 2) Would it not be better to link to the article about the cabinet (or the US equivalent term) instead of just the article on the president? See for instance how this is done at Minister of Transport and Communications (Norway). Arsenikk (talk) 15:21, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Parties aren't quite as relevant for a somewhat non-partisan office, but I'll take a look. It does link to the Cabinet, but you might have missed it because it's right next to the link about the President. Reywas92Talk 22:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What I was thinking was that instead of linking to 'George W. Bush', instead link to 'George W. Bush Cabinet' (and likewise for the other presidents/cabinets). I also notice in the mentioned cabinet article that Norman Mineta was a Democrat, despite serving under Bush. Since there seems to not be a 1:1 relation between the president and minister parties, this makes it even more important to state the person's party, since I would otherwise have been under the impression that Mineta was a Republican. Arsenikk (talk) 00:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Arsenikk, party seems to be quite relevant here.—Chris!c/t 19:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We do not have an article just about his Cabinet or any president's cabinet. I will work on the parties. Reywas92Talk 02:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Parties have been added, though the table is vrey wide now. Reywas92Talk 18:54, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What about linking to Presidency of Bill Clinton instead of Bill Clinton? (And, of course, doing the same thing for all other presidents who have such articles). The Ministry (talk) 23:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That was sort of what I was thinking of. The point is that a person who is interested in a series of ministers is going to be more interested in an article about the cabinet/presidency than of just a general biograph of the president. Arsenikk (talk) 23:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Too inconsistent. Other than the fact that some of the presidents don't have those articles, it's easy enough to click through. The president is relevant, not just the presidency. Reywas92Talk 01:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the late reply. I honestly cannot see what is inconsistent with this. It would be natural for a reader to seek the context of the appointment, such as the term, co-secretaries, cabinet policy etc, which is covered in the presidency article. It is less likely that a reader will want a general biography article about a president. Navigating from an article about a president to that of his presidency (and understanding that this is about his cabinet) is a rather difficult affair; conversely, navigating from a presidency article to that of the president is easy, should someone want a general biography of him. Arsenikk (talk) 18:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, I'm also in the Wikicup, but I am not trying to be difficult because of that. There is nothing I would rather see than coming in last place in the cup because everyone else made super-duper articles and lists. Arsenikk (talk) 18:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I'm big on consistency and I hope you understand that I do not want some pages linking to the President and some to the Presidency. In other secretary lists with people from longer ago, a vast majority of the preisdents do not have a separate subarticle; in this aricle it's about half-and-half, and the styles should not be split. Reywas92Talk 03:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) Given recent edits to related lists, I disagree that this has to follow other styles. Nonetheless, Reywas is saying that half of these articles do not exist. The options are therefore:

  1. To link to the biographies.
  2. To link to the presidencies where available, and the biographies the rest of the time.
  3. To link to the presidencies, and have redlinks where these articles do not exist.
  4. Add a column to allow both.

I'm against the third option. Although I am a fan of good redlinks, removing the direct links to the presidents means that they will not be linked at all. That does not strike me as an improvement. The fourth would solve this, but would also look silly. The second option means that this list will be more useful for some presidencies than others. I think Arsenikk makes a valid point, but I question whether there is a better way of doing it. WFCforLife (talk) 03:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done #2. Discussing this may be more of a problem than it itself. Reywas92Talk

Support excellent list which deserves a star. Arsenikk (talk) 11:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 09:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Alt text is weak for me. e.g. the infobox image doesn't mention he's wearing a blue tie and is in front of a US flag.
    • I've worked on it.
  • I don't see where ref [1] says this position is 14th in line to the presidency.
    • Added
  • " and he would subsequently be" why not "subsequently becoming"?
    • Changed
  • "serving Secretary, serving for over five and a half years" why not add some variety and say "holding the post for over..."?
    • Changed.
  • Not sure President of the US needs linking in the heading of the table, it is, after all, already linked in the lead.
    • Removed
  • Publication dates should be same format as accessdates.
    • Changed
  • In such a US-centric article, perhaps the ref dates should be mdy not dmy?
    • Changed, but that's the way WikEd automatically adds it for me.

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:19, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Succession in the infobox is linked to a generic article about succession. It should link to the presidential one.
    • That's automatically there from the Template:Infobox Political post.
      • If it's always referring to the presidential line then it should link more accurately. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's not. The template can be used for any country. Reywas92Talk 11:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Aha, I see. I'm someone clever could modify the template so that if it said "country=US" (say), then the link leads to the presidential line. I understand it may be out of the scope of this particular FLC but it certainly seems to be something we could improve. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Good idea, but I don't know how to do that. Reywas92Talk 02:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • Perhaps leave a note on the template's talkpage? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • Message left. Reywas92Talk 18:54, 16 January 2010 (UTC) Someone has changed that and fixed all the links.[reply]
  • Comment: The party thing seems off to me. It's a non-partisan office, and candidates who are registered with another party are occasionally chosen. But the main thing is, it's unreferenced. The only general ref doesn't mention party affiliation at all. --Golbez (talk) 19:59, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't really care. While it is still partisan, it's not really political. The point is to show those cross-overs. I doubt I could find a reference other than individual irrelevant mentions. Any other opinions? Reywas92Talk 22:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Ref #6 contains 2 References, I'm just wondering as to why these aren't 2 separate references. Afro (Not a Terrible Joke) - Afkatk 09:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The two work together. One indicates that the Secretary is Class 1 of the executive schedule, and the other gives its salary. Reywas92Talk 22:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well I was just wondering, since it looked kind of odd, it was no big problem anyway. Afro (Not a Terrible Joke) - Afkatk 09:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from WFCforLife

  • Was Mineta 69 at the start or the end of his tenure?
    • Start. I think it's inferred from the first part of the sentence.
      • That's the way I read it. I just thought it would make more sense to give his age at the end. This is a bit of a Brit-orientated example, but in a list of the oldest footballers, we would say that Stanley Matthews played professionally until he was 50, not that he joined Stoke at 46. WFCforLife (talk) 04:43, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not being from the US, I don't understand the relevance of "State of Residence". I understand what it means, but not the significance. What if one of them moved house?
    • No significance, really, but often it's nice to have where they're from listed. Politicians are normally associated with a certain state, which doesn't change very often; they're referenced in the general ref.
  • Agree with Afkatk on the date
    • Fixed.

Otherwise it looks pretty good. Regards, WFCforLife (talk) 02:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC) Disclosure: Not certain about Reywas because I can't load the page, but I'm in the wikicup. WFCforLife (talk) 02:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thanks! (And I am.) Reywas92Talk 03:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support. I have no real preference between the solutions I have given above. WFCforLife (talk) 04:49, 2 February 2010 (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/United_States_Secretary_of_Transportation/archive1&oldid=1140239060"