Fort Towson

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Featured listList of governors of Indiana is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 4, 2009Featured list candidatePromoted

Succession

This article in unbelieveably poor. No only should be there be a comprehensive summary of the position of Governor of the State of Indiana, but there should at a mimimum, be a listing of the line of succession for the role. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.115.155.55 (talk) 17:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why yes, it is poor. I'll get to it when I can. In the meantime, you're free to add stuff. --Golbez (talk) 17:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is fine as a List. The redirect page Governor of Indiana, needs to become it's own article with that information. I can try to do that this week. Charles Edward 01:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Impeachment

Do you think it is notable to add the two impeachments attempts. The legislature attempted to impeach Jonathan Jennings in 1819, but didnt succeed. They addtempted to impeach James B Ray in 1826, also did not suceed. Charles Edward (Talk) 23:35, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since they were not removed from office I do not think it is necessary to list it here. It's most relevant and already at Governor of Indiana in the History section. After this, that article would be nice to collaborate on. Reywas92Talk 23:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

(copied from User talk:Charles Edward)

I have been working on List of Governors of Indiana, which you substantially edited, by expanding the lead, adding images, and adding references. I believe it is getting close to being able to become featured. Could you please take a look at it and make any necessary inprovements? Thanks! Reywas92Talk 20:32, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the acting Lieutenant Governors are listed on the Governors list, should we also include them at Lieutenant Governor of Indiana? Reywas92Talk 22:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They are listed in the footnotes there. I only added the rest of them because one was already added. In my sources they are never counted with the elected ones, but are noted. What do you think? Charles Edward (Talk) 23:03, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that they could be included in the table of Lieutenants with a dash rather than a number to denote acting, but they don't necessarily need to be on the Governors list since they weren't official, but it isn't a big deal so we can go with whatever's easiest. We do, however, need to be consistent with the two lists as well as Political party strength in Indiana. Reywas92Talk 01:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. And that sounds jsut fine with me. :) I will add them into the Lt. Gov. article like you suggested when I get a chance, or you are welcome to do so. I also agree that we don't need them on the List of Governor article. I just added the rest for consistency. Feel free to remove them. Charles Edward (Talk) 02:17, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do it as soon as I can get around to it. Do you have any other suggestions about the Governors list before I nominate it for FL in a few days? Do think I need more references? The problem is that most of the lead is from the Constitutions, which I only refed once for each, and unrefable synthesis. I've modeled what I've done off other featured Gov lists, but not all of them have a separate main article about the Governor so my lead is not as long. Also, the others are inconsistent on refing the Other High Offices; there are the articles it links to, or should I really link every one to the Congress biographies? Thanks! Reywas92Talk 02:56, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a book that I can ref all the footnotes on as well as the other high offices section. I will try to get that in tomorrow sometime. As far as the lead, I don't have a good book for the duties of governor and succession, but I believe there is somewhere on IN.gov where we could find a fair explanation. I would think the constitution is a good source though for explaining his powers and term limits, etc; is there a better authority than the document itself? That might qualify as primary source, but I should think that it is ok in this case. I would definitely have book sources for the previous term limits, etc, and can dig that up tomorrow too. A little better referencing won't hurt. I think it looks pretty good. If we do need it to be a bit longer, I don't see any harm in copying over some info from Governor of Indiana. We could also link all the governor names in the image captions, or de-link them all to be consistent. I wonder if all the red linked Lt. Govs would be something that would hold it back? It is likely most of them will never be made, or at least not in the near future.
Earlier this year I went through all governor articles and tried to expand them all a bit. I got some of them pretty good, but others it's hard to find much detail on. Some of the Lt. Govs. it would probably be near impossible to find enough info to get much more than a couple lines of an article. Charles Edward (Talk) 03:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have made some formatting adjustments, and added some more refs and a tad more info. I created a table from teh top down and moved all the images into it. That way the edit buttons show up right instead of pushing all the way down. (like it did on my firefox). I also added an image of James Whitcomb, he is probably the third most notable governor and an image of him seems appropriate. Let me know what you think. Feel free to change anything back. Charles Edward (Talk) 22:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding those references. Book sources are always nice as well. If you see the history I originally did add links to all the Other Offices, but it was with Template:CongBio, which uses PAGENAME, so I had to revert myself on that; thanks for adding some back in with the cite templates. I can't believe both of us missed my error of listing IN as joining the Union on December 19th rather than 11th; I mistook it because we're the 19th state. I believe all of the term limits are cited already with the constitutions though more can't hurt. I doubt any of the Lt gov redlinks will ever become articles, but the sort template links them automatically.
I noticed you had difficulty adding refs to the notes; I had the same but there's a template to fix having a ref within a ref. Those notes, however, refer to multiple governors, so I don't think the book is a catch-all and should really go there. Also, It doesn't look so good with all the images starting at the top, going in and out of the sections. I would put them together as you had them, but still under the Governors header. I have IE so I'm not sure what you mean by pushing the edit button down. If they don't fit we could remove the poor image of Gray. I chose those just because they had another high office or had a distinction (separate terms). Reywas92Talk 22:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever you think looks best is fine with me. Looks like someone has already moved the images. LOL. The ref I was trying to add is the page with all the footnotes for the Govornor of Indiana list in my book. I does contain notes for all the resignations and deaths. As well as quite a few other things. So it would work for some of them. My is missing the last 20 years of info though.
In my firefox, if you have a long string of images, they push all the section "edit" buttons to the bottom of the long string. So all the "edit" links from the top down all show up in the "See Also" section to me, rather than in the sections where they belong. Most users prolly have IE though. Charles Edward (Talk) 23:11, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I redirected all the red linked Lt. Govs to the Lt Gov article. I think that might be better than just red links that will never become anything. Feel free to revert it if you think otherwise. I can't figure out a way to just block the link altogether. Charles Edward (Talk) 00:51, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine with me linking them to the Lt gov list, but List of Lieutenant Governors of Indiana redirects to Lieutenant Governor of Indiana, so either that needs to bypass it, or maybe just be consistent and move the article to the list name. Or maybe create redirects for the people articles to the list; I'm not sure, maybe FLC reviewers or Golbez have a comment. There are still a few mistakes in the templates from what was previously there, but you or I could easily fix them. Reywas92Talk 01:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why not make stubs for them? --Golbez (talk) 02:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A single sentance is a pretty pointless article I think. Especially when all the information is what is already in the list. If we could find good sources to make articles for them I would be willing to write them, but the ones who have no article already, pretty much have no source from which to write one. I have looked pretty hard. :) Charles Edward (Talk) 03:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Only if the stub article includes significant information other than the fact the person was lieutenant governor. If you can create a nice, informative, sourced little article about these people, please do, otherwise leave it a redlink. I know Charles attempted this before, but he couldn't find enough information. Even the Indiana Historical Bureau's list of Lt govs doesn't have information on them. But it's great if we can have semi-substantive articles on the Lt govs too. Reywas92Talk 03:02, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, I have several Indiana history books too, and the information in there is also scant. Charles Edward (Talk) 03:11, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Standardizing

Here is what is needed to be done to bring it to the current FL standard:

  1. Remove the party table. I was responsible for adding these way back when, but in retrospect, they add no information at all; even if the terms were used, instead of governors, it gives no context, etc. The list itself can be used to get this information.
  2. Redo main list:
    1. Align-center
    2. Use colors a la List of Governors of Alabama, using a single tiny cell for color rather than the whole row.
    3. Stubbify the redlinks. All lieutenant governors are worthy of an article; IMO, they should not redirect to a list article.
    4. Rowspan things. Each lieutenant governor should have its own cell, not commas.
      1. This means the table cannot be sortable.
  3. General fixes for the other offices table, again see Alabama
  4. See also contains irrelevant links, these are in the table or in the footer.
  5. IMO, since there is an Indiana Government footer, we can do without the Indiana footer.
  6. We need to verify that every lieutenant governor listed was of the same party as the governor. For the post-ticket era, that's simple, but what about ones from before they were elected on the same ticket?

The reason I'm listing these rather than doing them is, I don't want to get stuck in a bunch of edit conflicts. I'll do 'em later. :) -- Golbez (talk) 03:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The party of Lt Gov issue is not a big problem, Indiana has always had men run together on the same ticket since the 1831 election. There was no "oranized" parties in the state before 1825, and the only one in the middle was Ray, and he and his LT.Gov where both independent for sure. I can source that if need be. User:TheHoosierState89 has links from the State Library with the same information, I could ask him for them if we need it. I don't think this stuff would be too hard to take care. Charles Edward (Talk) 03:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. I see your point, but I think the statistics are noteworthy. Maybe rather than a table at the top something else could be done later in the article involving other info as well

It can be handled in text, if at all. --Golbez (talk) 04:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2.1. Will do, though I don't see it as high-importance.
2.2. I had originally preferred the style of Alabama, but now I think I prefer it this way, though that can be done. What I don't want is a separate cell for both the Gov and Lt Gov.

What do you mean by 'separate cell'? Like how it's done in Alabama? If the Lt Govs and govs are always the same party then I suppose that can be avoided (and a note made).
Yes, like in Alabama. I want only one column of color.

2.3. They should only be articles if they can be substantive. Stubs are not good when they are nothing more than what's already in the list.

I disagree; stubs are useful.
Only if they are more substantive than "XYZ was Lieutenant Governor of Indiana". That is not useful. There must be more infomation than a few lines that restate the table, and of course there must be multiple references. Make the articles if they will be complete, but not for the sake of creating them.

2.4. This is about the Governor, not the Lieutenant Governor, so it's not that important for each Lt to have his own cell. I think it is important to be able to sort.

Aesthetics matter, and they look much better with their own cells...
And sorting matters too. I can change it to a break, which is better than commas.

3. Will do. It shouldn't be too difficult.
4. Okay, but should we not have a see also then?

What do we need to 'see also'?
Okay, then I'll remove them all.

5. Traditionally all navboxes from which an article is linked are included on the article, but I suppose it can be done.

I don't think the list of governors is in the Indiana navbox. If it is, then there's an obvious overlap between the two and perhaps the Indiana Government navbox should be merged into the main one.
The Indiana box has "previous governors" in it, along with major topics and cities/towns/counties. The Government box has Indiana legislature, all the elected offices, and departments of the government. They are distinct.

6. Comparing this and our list of Lt govs and the IHB's, I did find a few discrepancies, but this shouldn't be hard to too take care of. Along with #1, I just don't want two columns of cells and colors going crazy. However, this is a list of governors, so we are listing the gov with his party and the gov with his lt. Unlike Alabama, they are on the same ticket, so even though there's a couple differences between the gov's and lt's party, only one column should be used here.

I based my development of the list off other similar FLs, and I don't think all of this is necessarily required for FL, but thank you very much for you comments and we will do what we can to make this one of Wikipedia's best works! Reywas92Talk 03:37, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having had to fight to bring these lists to FL, I know pretty much what is needed for FL. I also know what is needed before I will vote for one. :)

Also, I'm not really sure what you did with the images. Now there's the Governors header followed by a huge amount of white space with a stack of images on the side and and tables not starting until the end of them. It worked fine for me previously, though Charles had a problem. There mustbe something that works for all. Reywas92Talk 03:37, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I used 'upright' and moved them over to the side; upright is much preferable to forcing a particular size. There's no way to make a layout that's aesthetically pleasing for everyone. Also, one to add to the above: Changing the Notes column to a Terms column. --Golbez (talk) 04:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I must say no to this one. I realize there is a note that they are not literal, but they are just wrong. And for Indiana, terms were originally three years but later four. And what would the 2-dayer say? IMO These are just confusing, incorrect, and unnecessary. And they can also be determined directly from the table, just as you said for the party table.
Benefits to a Terms column: There's no empty cells, like there are with a notes column; it's immediately apparent (and sortable, if possible) which governors were elected multiple times, and which served partial terms; it gives a good jumping off point to have a note, since every half term needs to be documented, but that's not immediately obvious with a table just listing start and end dates. I was against it when it was first introduced but rapidly grew to like it. --Golbez (talk) 17:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
About the images, what's wrong with the captions? It is appropriate to include the order of office as well as others held. There is surely some way to fix the stacking for all. This way has five screens' length of white space and the pics on the right for all three computers I tried, and the text doesn't begin until after the last one. Or what if the images were within the table? Reywas92Talk 17:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The captions went a little too detailed, I think; governor during the Civil War is easily seen in the table; 'current senator' makes us have to monitor yet another article in case of a chance in senate membership; and perhaps the bankrupcy is a major issue in local history but I've certainly never heard major bits about it, so I trimmed it. If it is such a major issue then include it. I was originally going to say "only list major, major offices" but I've in the past listed occupations such as first mayor of San Francisco, and commissioner of Major League Baseball, so there's obviously some leeway there. As for the stacking, the white space was caused because of broken image captions :P The div is necessary to put the edit links where they properly belong. Images within the table are not going to get you through FLC unless every entry has an image. --Golbez (talk) 17:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There were never more than two things, so I don't think they were too detailed. I trust that this will be updated when Bayh leaves the Senate, which may not be for many years. I didn't know much about the bankruptcy either - Charles added it - but that's why it's listed. Thanks for fixing my ]] error, but they still don't look good. I'll try a little experimenting still with the div then. Actually, five huge lists of Nobel laureates recently passed, and they were all half and half about images, though adding them would be a lot more work. Thanks Reywas92Talk 18:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Re the bankruptcy issue, yes it is probably the third or fourth biggest event in the history of the state, after the depression, civil war, and maybe the battle of tippecanoe. It was a huge debacle at the time and contributed to the destruction of the Whig party in the state, which was also a contributing factor to it's national weakening and collapse. It's importance of course is my POV. :) I wrote Indiana Mammoth Internal Improvement Act about it. Charles Edward (Talk) 21:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for centering everything Reywas92. I knew there had to be an easier way. That is what was meant my centering table by the notes above I hope. :) Charles Edward (Talk) 02:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LT. Gov Party Labels

I don't think we need to separate the Lt Gov. Party labels from teh governor. The only discrepancies are ratliff boon and John H. Thompson. But - in that period there were no party labels in state. As in, when they were elected, they did not list a party on the ballot. Everyone was the same party, just different factions of the same party. [[1]]. The only other discrepancy I notice was when Paris C. Dunning (democrat) was acting lt. governor during the term of Oliver Morton (republican) - but that is not listed here. Charles Edward (Talk) 00:30, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re Lt Govs, this column should not be sortable, as it includes two pieces of information, and thus only the first would be sortable. --Golbez (talk) 00:32, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How can you make just one column "un-sortable"? Is there some code we could put on that column to keep it from working? Or maybe is there a way to make the table plain, and then just certain columns sortable. I am not terribly familiar with wiki code, so any pointer would be appreciated. :) Charles Edward (Talk) 01:08, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"style=unsortable" in the column head, I think. --Golbez (talk) 07:45, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Terms Column

I am ok with putting the terms into columns, but I think we should decide how to do it first. I don't think it is a good idea to just put half terms, because that is a bit misleading in most the cases. Lane was governor for 2 days, half term is an overstatment. Morton resigned just a couple monthes before his term was over, so saying half term is cutting him short almost two years. Also, the terms were originally three years, and now they are four. I think it would be better to list days in office, or years and days in office - if we are going to add that column. What do you think? Charles Edward (Talk) 00:30, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Days maybe, but the fractional terms also let you easily see who shared an elected term. I see no problem whatsoever giving a 1/2 or 1/3 or whatever to a 2 day term; the point is to indicate not the length of the term, but who shared it with the elected governor. --Golbez (talk) 01:21, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

K I added it. I noticed the terms of Mcnutt and is succesor overlap. I don't have my book in front of me, so I am not sure what is correct. If someone can look that up before me please correct it. :) I also calcuted the days in office by what was in the terms column, so will need fixed too.

I added the term lengths too using this site to calcute the days [2]. I think it worked. Feel free to revert if you don't like it. Charles Edward (Talk) 02:24, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, even M. Clifford Townsend lists his Lt and Gov terms overlapping. I'll see what I can find. The term lengths are great. Thanks! For some reason however, when they are sorted they are listed alphabetically with all the 1s then 2s first, not numerically. I'll look for a solution for that. I also corrected Schricker as also being 8 years 4 days; it was a few days shorted than that. Reywas92Talk 02:49, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is the ref tags that is causing it. I removed them all out on a test edit, and it allows them to sort numerically. It must be forcing alphabetical because it is detecting letters in the field. Wonder if there is a fix? Charles Edward (Talk) 01:20, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I gotta say, I don't like the days, for two reasons. One, it clutters up things that could be more easily handled with an abstract term number; two, it's a simple extrapolation from the date, and thus doesn't really add any information to the table; and three, it requires constant updating to keep the incumbent up to date, or a simple 'we give up' dash or something. Also, were leap years and non-leap years (1900) taken into account? The page you link seems to understand that 1900 wasn't a leap year... but it also seems to think 2000 wasn't, either. --Golbez (talk) 00:32, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am unsure that it counted the leap years, I suspected that perhaps it did not but have not had time to look at it in detail. I could not find any other utility that would calculate before the year 1971. I will try to hunt down something now. Although I do agree that putting the number of terms would look neater and present better, it is splitting the partial terms where I am concerned. I think it would be fairly misleading to simply put terms into half or quarter fractions. Is there any other alternative? I also checked my book and the date Reywas put in for the overlap is correct. Thanks! Charles Edward (Talk) 01:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I checked it and leap years were not counted. I went through and added the leap days to the terms were needed. Charles Edward (Talk) 02:45, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Did you omit 1900's non-leap day? --Golbez (talk) 06:34, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I had not thought of that! Thanks for pointing it out. I have corrected it. Charles Edward (Talk) 14:03, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Left to do

From Golbez's comments, I believe there are only two things left to do. One is to change the party color from a background to a column. Other FLs use backgrounds, but I can change them. I'm really not sure which I like better. Second is to add a terms column. I still don't like it, but it can be added, though in addition to the days. If refs are moved to the column with terms, then the problem of sorting the days is solved. And the numbers Charles had were correct in the first place. I calculated some of them myself and the new numbers added one for the leap years, but they were already there. I may be able to start that tomorrow, otherwise after Friday when school is out. Reywas92Talk 23:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have done both of those. Didn't take as long as I thought it would :). Please double-check my work and let me know what you think. I guess I was overzealous before, but now I really think the list is ready to take to WP:FLC. Reywas92Talk 01:46, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The terms are supposed to be abstract; by trying to turn something abstract into something appearing closer to reality, I think you're making it much harder to understand. I speak of course of the 1/8th terms being given out to a couple of governors, not to mention the pluses... The problem here is, how to illustrate a half term, with the successor being elected and leaving in his next term, and having a successor. 1/2 + (1/2 + 1/2) + 1/2, but you can't very well say 1/2 + 1 + 1/2, because the middle guy didn't serve a full term. I'll see if I can find examples of this in my other lists to see if I've dealt with this problem. ...

okay, I found one on Arkansas: Bill Clinton served 3 full terms, then resigned midway through his 4th. So he was given 3 1/2. Jim Guy Tucker took over, so he gets 1/2. He was then elected. But he resigned midway through his next term. So I split the difference and gave him 3/4. So then comes Mike Huckabee, replacing Tucker, and he's elected to two further terms. So I gave him 2 3/4. They add up - we have 3 1/2 + 3/4 + 2 3/4 = 7 terms total. And that's exactly how many they were elected to, all told. Four for Clinton, one for Tucker, and two for Huckabee. It's not the cleanest solution ever, but combined with healthy footnoting I think it works better than this. I'll throw in a dummy edit of how I think the terms should look just to illustrate it, then revert, but I think the way this is now, it's needlessly complicating matters. The terms is a mere illustration, an abstract figure to explain simply some of the passages, with footnotes explaining just what was up. I don't think we're doing a service to the reader by being needlessly detailed in this wholly abstract column. --Golbez (talk) 03:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you had not just explained that to me, I would have no idea that is what was meant by the terms on the Arkansas page. I think our readers would be misled or confused by this system. Especially one man who served during two terms, but was listed as serving less than one term. If we do put it footnote on each instance of a partial term with an explanation, I think it would be ok though. Charles Edward (Talk) 20:26, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever you think is best, though it should not be too abstract. I knew that ⅞+1+½ for Morton looks very strange, but I put it there anyway because it's a little more literal than 2⅜. He only served one full term plus some on either side, so it shouldn't be 2 plus some. For Ray and Baker, it's to show that they inherited the end of the previous term rather than that it was an extension of their full terms. And yes, every one with a fraction has a note. Reywas92Talk 22:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But the way it is now, you're trying too hard. Especially the 1/8 vs 7/8 one; as a reader who might be confused by Arkansas, that would confuse me; why is this one 1/8? 2 days is much less than 1/8! --Golbez (talk) 22:12, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then what should I say? 1/730? 1/2 or even 1/4 is an even bigger overstatement. This is why I didn't really like a terms column, though I do see the usefulness of comparing some of them. But there's the 3 year- vs. 4 year-term as well! Reywas92Talk 22:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone ahead and nominated the list at WP:FLC at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Governors of Indiana. I invite you both to co-nominate. Reywas92Talk 17:03, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

see also

What do you think about adding a see also section with the indiana portal template and Indiana Governor's Residence? Charles Edward (Talk) 03:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure! Reywas92Talk 17:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Complaints

I was out of town during most of the FLC, and I conommed because I do think it's FL quality, but I think it could be better. My complaints:

  1. The picture at the top. Why not the current governor? This is not a huge complaint, though.
I like having all the people photos together. This is a list of all governors, not just the current, so I think a more general photo is more appropriate for the lead.
  1. The lieutenant governors.
    1. Stubs. There should not be blacklinks here. They're notable. They can be stubs.
We have addressed this already. They can be stubs only if they are actually useful, not just "Name was lieutenant governor of Indiana from year to year under governor." If you would like to research them I invite you to, but even the Indiana Historical Bureau site doesn't have profiles on them.
    1. Each one, IMO, should have its own cell. Yes, this renders the table unsortable. No, I don't think it matters.
IMO, sorting is important; readers can look at the govs alphabetically, or grouped by party, or by shortest to longest time in office. I know someone has delveloped an excellent way to sort rowspans, and hopefully it will be implemented soon. User:Tcncv/Table Sort Demo
  1. Days. I don't think this really helps, and it clutters up the table. It's easy to see who served a partial term with the terms column; if someone is truly interested in how long the term is, they can do the simple math. This is my biggest issue with the list.
Some people aren't so good at math. There is List of United States Presidents by time in office, so the information should be included. State governors just shouldn't have a separate list.
  1. Terms. My complaints here are no secret; I think you're trying to be too smart by half by trying to be "accurate" with fractions that are supposed to be wholly abstract. I'm referring to the 1/8 term. That should be 1/2, to fit with the other styles. The whole point of the terms column is to easily indicate which terms were partial; not to try to give some fake accuracy to the concept. The plus system, I can deal with later.
I'm not trying to be "accurate", otherwise it would say 1/730. I understand that it should be abstract, but 1/2 is a bit off. Can I call his very short term 1/3? Things that are supposed to be general are often taken too literally. If the sole purpose is to say their term was not complete, then that's what the notes are for. I may have gone to far with the pluses (½+1 rather than 1½), but I don't want to say Morton served 2½ terms when he was only served one full term.

Should I give up? I just don't think there is a big enough consensus, at this point, to switch from my preferred format to the one used in this list. --Golbez (talk) 23:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You shouldn't necessarily give up, but you can't have it a certain way all the time; we should compromise somewhere. Maybe some lts did other things that make them more notable, but a sufficient article can't be made for every running mate in history. Some people may not find term lengths as interesting as others. I did do excessive plussing in the terms though. Maybe Charles would like to comment again. Reywas92Talk 02:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Having run into a horrific situation on the Connecticut list (three governors died in a row, and all of their successors were elected to further terms), I must withdraw my objection to "1 + ½" et.al., as that's the only method to adequately describe such issues. However, I still think there's no point in using ⅛. =p --Golbez (talk) 22:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Governors Standards.

Consensus was reached among other governor editors on what the "standard" should be. Golbez, Designate and me were among the editors discussing it. If you feel Indiana should be an outlier, then reach consensus among the other editors that Indiana should stay as is. I will follow what the group decides. Otherwise the page should stay as is until then. Bgwhite (talk) 23:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the infobox... The infobox is meant for quick look at information. In almost all cases, the information in the infobox is also in the article. When a person comes to the article, they can quickly see who is governor and important facts. Bgwhite (talk) 23:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have a consensus, though. Golbez and I have disagreed on many points. I'm not a huge fan of the "standard" we've been using and I don't want to push it on articles that are already in good shape. It's just a guideline at best.
With regards to the link/infobox: In theory, every state can have two articles, one list of governors and one article on the office of governor (its history, powers, significance, etc.). See President of the United States and List of Presidents of the United States for the general idea. We do this with almost every national head of state, and some subnational governments as well (Premier of Ontario and List of Premiers of Ontario, for example). So it can be done for US governors.
But we should only have separate articles if there is enough written about the office of governor to justify it. For most states, there isn't enough written (yet). So we effectively combine them into the list article. That's why most governor lists have the opening bolded instead of linked, because there's nothing to link to. If a separate article on the position exists, then the list should link to it. Governor of Indiana is a good article and there's plenty written about it, so it should certainly be linked.
Now, if the main article exists, and it has an infobox, then the list doesn't need one. There's no need to recap all that trivia from the main article. The infobox doesn't really have anything to do with the list, after all. —Designate (talk) 00:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I personally didn't want to get involved in this until I got to the article; I was happy to let the existing FLs lie while I worked my way down the alphabet. I still pretty much feel that way. That said, I agree about the infobox. The list of Presidents of the United States doesn't have an infobox (And, personally, I don't think this particular infobox adds anything whatsoever to the articles its in. It's not like it's a clearing house for information like a country infobox; it contains 4 or so tidbits that are easily found in the text: The name of the current governor and how long he's been in office (end of the list), the style (not terribly relevant), term length (in the prose), residence (that's about it, but that's more relevant for the article on the office rather than the list), 'formation' and inaugural (first entry in list), deputy (check end of list), and salary (again, not sure this is needed).) As for the rest of the style issues, I'm willing to let that lie for another time. We have, what, 15 featured articles in this set? That leaves 35 to go. I have no doubt styles will morph between now and Wyoming. The only time I've really raised a stink was when I got to Delaware (I do enjoy going alphabetically), which was the first featured governor list and had a very outdated style. --Golbez (talk) 12:44, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Political Parties of Territorial Governors

I noticed that it didn't mention political parties for these people. Is that because they didn't have any?

65.214.67.173 (talk) 05:50, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Territorial governors were appointed, not elected, so their party was irrelevant. They weren't nominated or declared for any party. --Golbez (talk) 15:44, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on List of Governors of Indiana. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:08, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on List of Governors of Indiana. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:33, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on List of Governors of Indiana. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:09, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Governors of Indiana. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:29, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:List of Governors of New York which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 14:30, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:52, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:04, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_governors_of_Indiana