Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Minister of Transport and Communications (Norway)/archive1

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 08:14, 30 June 2010 [1].

---

Minister of Transport and Communications (Norway)

Minister of Transport and Communications (Norway) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured list candidates/Minister of Transport and Communications (Norway)/archive1

Nominator(s): Arsenikk ^(talk) 11:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

This simple list is inspired by other lists of holders of political offices. Hopefully fairly straight-forward, if not, further improvements will be made. Arsenikk ^(talk) 11:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comment What's the point of the disambiguating "{Norway)" at the end of the article title? I can't find any other Wikipedia article about a different Minister of Transport and Communications. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I wasn't me who named this article, but I presume idea is to create a consistency among the Norwegian minister articles, and most positions are internationally ambiguous, such as Minister of Health, Minister of Foreign Affairs etc. I have nothing against moving the article, though, I guess I just never though of it that way. Arsenikk ^(talk) 14:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
    • I actually agree with disambiguating here. There are other titles (some redirects) with similar names. for example Minister of Transportation and Communications. There is also the potential for more similar names (see Ministry of Transport). As such, I believe having a title which lets you know which country for those that aren't familiar with the exact terminology is useful. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
      • Don't worry about moving the article; I accept the explanations. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments - Looks good. But I have some questions. Why is the list goes from the oldest officeholder to the most recent. But the timeline is not. Also, are the Norwegian party names relevant? After all, this is English Wikipedia.—Chris!_c/t 21:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I could not find a way to "turn around" the timeline, but I've moved around the table, although it perhaps now runs the "wrong way" now. Arsenikk ^(talk) 20:57, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

That was a mistake. The guideline for this is quite explicit. Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists)#Chronological ordering says Chronological lists, including all timelines and lists of works, should be in earliest-to-latest chronological order. Special cases which specifically require frequent daily additions, such as Deaths in 2009, may use reverse chronological order for temporary convenience, although these articles should revert to non-reverse order when the article has stabilized, such as Deaths in 2003. However I did some reading at mw:Extension:EasyTimeline/syntax#TimeAxis (mandatory) and putting in order:reverse does the trick. You'll need to re-flip that table though. Best, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for finding that trick with the timeline. Makes the article a lot better, now that the table is back to normal. Arsenikk ^(talk) 21:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment Oppose concerns resolved Sandman888 (talk) 19:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

why timeline when it contains the exact same information?

Could you either not use colours in the list or perhaps use the same colours the timeline employs?

if you remove timeline, gallery cd be on the right, that'll IMO be a much better solution.

tenure: isn't there a template that give the number of days from X date to current date?

Lead cd be longer: why was the ministry created? Did it replace previous ministries?

The colors in the timeline and table can not be the same as the colors from the table are too faint for the timeline, and ones from the timeline are too bright for the table. Ruslik_Zero 18:49, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

The timeline shows visually how long various officeholders held office, and doubles up to show the period the various parties held office. It allows the reader in seconds to deduce information about the officeholders that would take minutes to figure out by reading the table, and then trying to visualize in one's head. Concerning tenure, I cannot find a suitable way to get an output that would give a correctly sorted date (although the output itself is possible). Conserning the reasons for why the ministry was established, in Norway ministries are created and closed regularly. The ministry is unique in that it is, with only perhaps four exceptions, lived the entire post-WWII area without a change. Often there isn't a specific reason for a change, its just that the prime minister feels (s)he needs to rearrange the minister posts to handle things differently. Arsenikk ^(talk) 20:57, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

• Couldn't this easily be merged and incorporated within Norwegian Ministry of Transport and Communications, which shd be named Ministry of Transport and Communications (Norway) ? I.e. a description of the Ministry and list of the ministers.
• If you can make it show the correct date, can't you just use an approx number in the sort-parameter? It will not need updating that often.
  • Sandman888 (talk) 15:27, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
• No respond to above consideration for over a week, switched to oppose. Sandman888 (talk) 20:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Sorry, somehow missed your reply; I havn't been on Wikipedia much the last week. Incorporating this into the ministry article would be undue weight to spend up to a quarter of a full-length article of the ministry on just a list of people who had headed it. The position is clearly notable on its own. As this is doubles as the article on the minister, you would have to argue that the minister position is not notable enough for an article. The ministers are also members of the Council of State, position which in themselves would warrant mention in a list, although this is in practice done by placing them in portfolio lists such as this. Similar lists, such as United States Secretary of Transportation (with fewer ministers) has previously passed FL, and in my experience 27 people is far more than the common "minimum" entries for FL. As for the tenure, I've added the template, but the sort key will need to be manually updated as time passes. Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
    • I dont see the potential in the Norwegian Ministry of Transport and Communications article to be much longer than it is now, so a list of ministers wouldn't be given undue weight. The article and list on the transportation department in the US cd IMO easily be merged into one article. Sandman888 (talk) 06:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
      • There is no problem expanding the ministry article to full length. 64 years of history should be included, including policy changes, transfer of responsibilities between the state and lower levels of government, privatizations, regulations and nationalizations. The organizational section should include the structure, current political and administrative top executives; a full description (say a paragraph) of all subsidiaries, a detailed description of the ministries direct activities (such as granting concessions to for instance inter-county coach services), overall policy role and framework conditions regulated by the ministry, funding—both to the ministry itself and subsidiaries, and the financing model of various projects. So there is ample to expand the article with. Arsenikk ^(talk) 10:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
      • As Arsenikk said, the article on the ministry has potential to be expanded 10-20-fold. Geschichte (talk) 14:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Good job on the tenure thing. Sandman888 (talk) 06:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Support. I found no serious problems. Ruslik_Zero 18:49, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support, though I share the same concern(s) regarding the timeline. The chart is detailed and effective, and I don't really agree on the necessity. Yes, it's simple, but it doesn't offer a lot of information compared to the chart, and the fact that some names are bunched up doesn't help matters. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 19:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• Another "not keen" on the timeline, moreso because it fails WP:ACCESS, using just colour to denote political party.
• I'm a bit dim, what are "framework conditions"?
• I'd prefer to see the gallery down the side in place of the timeline.

The Rambling Man (talk) 13:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

As I seem to be the only one that supports the timeline, I've removed it. I've converted the gallery to 100x100px images down the side, but it doesn't look as good as the gallery, which was why I instated the gallery in the first place. I found the term "framework conditions" in the dictionary, so it is a real term, although it is similar to policy, so I've removed it and kept policy, which strictly speaking covers the point. On a more general note, the color usage is very intuitive to Norwegians, making it easier for people familiar with Norwegian politics to get an overview. And yes, Norwegians use the English Wikipedia just as much as the Norwegian Wikipedia, simply because our project has so much higher quality and the domestic understanding of English is excellent. I therefore have no problems "optimizing" the articles for Norwegians, while of course keeping it fully understandable for people without the same background. Arsenikk ^(talk) 18:44, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:ACCESS is universal, not an anti-Norway thing! Colour usage needs to be "universal" and meet the accessibility guidelines. Galleries are always a bit incongruous for me, so I'm glad you've got rid of it. I didn't say "framework conditions" wasn't real, but as a native English speaker (being English) I have no idea what it means. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: Is there any reason why the list says "1 years" instead of "1 year"? I mention it here instead of changing it on the page because I think I could be missing something. Apterygial 00:20, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
  • No reason, just a typo. Now fixed. Arsenikk ^(talk) 10:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Support Mm40 (talk) 11:26, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Mm40 (talk)

Comments from Mm40 (talk). Very nice article, I'm looking forward to supporting A reference for the Norwegian name would be appreciated Seems a bit like overkill to me, but I've added it. Note that Norwegian grammar is a bit more tricky than English, in that the "the" is stuck at the end of the word, so the source will refer to a minister as samferdselsminister but the the minister as samferdelsministeren. Arsenikk (talk) 13:02, 25 June 2010 (UTC) Is there any information on why the role was created? Was there a particular event that highlighted the need for one? Except that is was created in the wake of the end of WWII and five years of German occupation of Norway, there was no "particular" reason. The ministry is among the most stable, as Norwegian governments often re-organize the ministries after every election. Arsenikk (talk) 13:02, 25 June 2010 (UTC) Here's a short history: [2]. Geschichte (talk) 14:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC) "was created along with the ministry" The two sentences about longest- and shortest-sitting minister are very similar in structure and wording; could you reword one of those? "only of the officeholders to have later become Prime Minister" → "the only officeholder to later become Prime Minister" Could the List heading be renamed Ministers? According to our article, "Store Norske Leksikon" → "Store norske Leksikon. Mm40 (talk) 12:32, 25 June 2010 (UTC) Thanks for the comments. Unless noted, I've amended the article per your comments. Arsenikk (talk) 13:02, 25 June 2010 (UTC) I don't see anything about any "Store norske Leksikon". It's ungrammatical. Geschichte (talk) 14:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.