This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I am removing the red links from names that are simply not Notable. This I do after checking (1) the L.A. Publlic Library reference files, (2) California Digital Newspaper Collection, (3) the L.A. Times files (if after 1881). Normally, if the subject has not had a printed obituary, then he or she is simply not Notable. Anyway, that's how I've been doing it. GeorgeLouis ( talk) 11:00, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Just wondering why you changed the alphabetical template at the bottom of the above page to chronological and why you omitted the given names of the candidates? The template is plainly labeled "alphabetical," and the reader has no idea who these people are without the given names. I have changed it back. Thanks in advance for responding. GeorgeLouis (talk) 5:03 am, Today (UTC−8)
Is there consensus for the changes that User:Purplebackpack99 has recently made to this article, beginning with these differences (two separate edits): [1]? 04:34, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
You may not be familiar with sortable lists, but they are common throughout WP. There's no need to have two lists when one table can do the job. The function can be determined by hovering the mouse over the arrows. The table should be sortable by both surname and date of term. As I've said before, the default view should be chronological (earliest to most recent). The default action for the surname should be ABC, which is what I found when clicking on the name column of the previous version (on a related note: you should have waited to resolve this discussion before reverting to the previous version). Refer to Help:Sorting to fix any issues (for example Charles E. Carr appeared at the top when sorting by name and Charles H. Larrabee appeared at the bottom if you click to sort by date descending).
There are two reasons to use the sortable table. One is that WP:WHENTABLE "The sortability of multiple columns in a table is a powerful tool that helps the reader to understand relationships and find patterns in large lists...Often a list is best left as a list. Before reformatting a list into table form, consider whether the information will be more clearly conveyed by virtue of having rows and columns. If so, then a table is probably a good choice. If there is no obvious benefit to having rows and columns, then a table is probably not the best choice." In other words, the list of attorneys should be presented as a list and not in a table unless there's value to using the table (which there is when making it sortable). One point I came across and is a good issue to mention is that "if (list) items have specific dates a chronological format is sometimes preferable", per MOS:LIST#Organization. Furthermore, navboxes are designed to be at the bottom of an article after the appendices (see also, refs, external links), not in a content section (see Wikipedia:Navigation templates).
Another point which I came across, and which would have been better to point out earlier in this discussion, is that "Alphabetical ordering does not provide any additional value to a category containing the same article links." (from WP:NAVBOX; there's already Category:Los Angeles City Attorneys) That reinforces what I said earlier about including the dates in the template and what I just said about not needing a second listing of attorneys by surname. So the article should contain either a listing by chronological order (most appropriate for an officeholder) or a sortable table, but it should not contain a chronological table plus an alphabetical listing using the navbox. (Note: I may not be back for a couple days.) AHeneen ( talk) 07:16, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Despite my feeling that two tables (each serving a different purpose) are the best way to handle this page, I have agreed in the spirit of consensus to accept a single table, but the one proposed is not user-friendly and attempts to do too much in one place — that is; it provides for an alphabetical listing in the first column and also for a chronological listing in the second. As to necessity of sorting the first column, certainly a Z-Y-X sorting order is never required. As to the second column, it may or may not be advantageous for the names to be listed in reverse chronological order, but I don't see why the reader cannot simply scroll to the end of the column to see the latest name (if the column were listed chronologically to begin with). That is why I believe two separate tables are needed — a columnar table for the chronology and a horizontal table for the alphabet – one that can instantly be scanned in a glance. As AHeneen said above, "the ease of navigating by readers should be the primary concern." This proposed combined table, in my opinion, isn't up to the task. Yours, GeorgeLouis ( talk) 16:11, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
@ GeorgeLouis: The two links are places you can start a discussion if you don't like the sortable table. They aren't there for you to simply read. There's also a clear consensus to have the table sortable both chronologically and alphabetically (three editors in support, only you are opposed). The article is still a stub. AHeneen ( talk) 05:21, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Place new discussion below: 18:59, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Following is the sortable table which I prefer, with the first column made non-sortable:
Name | Term Click to reverse chronology |
---|---|
Benjamin Hayes | 1850–1851 |
William G. Dryden | 1851–1852 |
Joseph Lancaster Brent | 1852–1853 |
Charles E. Carr | 1853 |
Joseph Lancaster Brent | 1853 |
Isaac Hartman | 1854–1855 |
Lewis Granger | 1855–1856 |
Cameron E. Thom | 1856–1858 |
James H. Lader | 1858–1859 |
Samuel F. Reynolds | 1859–1861 |
James H. Lader | 1861–1862 |
Myer Joseph Newmark | 1862 |
Alfred Chapman | 1862–1865 |
James H. Lader | 1865 |
Andrew J. King | 1866–1868 |
Charles H. Larrabee | 1868 (did not serve) [a] |
William McPherson | 1868–1870 |
Frank H. Howard | 1870–1872 |
Aurelius W. Hutton | 1872–1876 |
John Franklin Godfrey | 1876–1880 |
Henry T. Hazard | 1880–1882 |
Walter D. Stephenson | 1882–1884 |
James Wilfred McKinley | 1884–1886 |
J.C. Daly | 1886–1888 |
Charles H. McFarland | 1888–1894 |
William Ellsworth Dunn | 1894–1898 |
Walter F. Haas | 1898–1900 |
W.B. Mathews | 1900–1906 |
Leslie R. Hewitt | 1906–1910 |
John W. Shenk | 1910–1913 |
Alfred Lee Stephens | 1913–1919 |
Charles S. Burnell | 1919–1921 |
Jess E. Stephens | 1921–1929 |
Erwin P. Warner | 1929–1933 |
Ray L. Chesebro | 1933–1953 |
Roger Arnebergh | 1953–1973 |
Burt Pines | 1973–1981 |
Ira Reiner | 1981–1985 |
James Hahn | 1985–2001 |
Rocky Delgadillo | 2001–2009 |
Carmen Trutanich | 2009–2013 |
Mike Feuer | 2013–present |
— BeenAroundAWhile ( talk) 19:04, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha>
tags or {{efn}}
templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}}
template or {{notelist}}
template (see the
help page).
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I am removing the red links from names that are simply not Notable. This I do after checking (1) the L.A. Publlic Library reference files, (2) California Digital Newspaper Collection, (3) the L.A. Times files (if after 1881). Normally, if the subject has not had a printed obituary, then he or she is simply not Notable. Anyway, that's how I've been doing it. GeorgeLouis ( talk) 11:00, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Just wondering why you changed the alphabetical template at the bottom of the above page to chronological and why you omitted the given names of the candidates? The template is plainly labeled "alphabetical," and the reader has no idea who these people are without the given names. I have changed it back. Thanks in advance for responding. GeorgeLouis (talk) 5:03 am, Today (UTC−8)
Is there consensus for the changes that User:Purplebackpack99 has recently made to this article, beginning with these differences (two separate edits): [1]? 04:34, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
You may not be familiar with sortable lists, but they are common throughout WP. There's no need to have two lists when one table can do the job. The function can be determined by hovering the mouse over the arrows. The table should be sortable by both surname and date of term. As I've said before, the default view should be chronological (earliest to most recent). The default action for the surname should be ABC, which is what I found when clicking on the name column of the previous version (on a related note: you should have waited to resolve this discussion before reverting to the previous version). Refer to Help:Sorting to fix any issues (for example Charles E. Carr appeared at the top when sorting by name and Charles H. Larrabee appeared at the bottom if you click to sort by date descending).
There are two reasons to use the sortable table. One is that WP:WHENTABLE "The sortability of multiple columns in a table is a powerful tool that helps the reader to understand relationships and find patterns in large lists...Often a list is best left as a list. Before reformatting a list into table form, consider whether the information will be more clearly conveyed by virtue of having rows and columns. If so, then a table is probably a good choice. If there is no obvious benefit to having rows and columns, then a table is probably not the best choice." In other words, the list of attorneys should be presented as a list and not in a table unless there's value to using the table (which there is when making it sortable). One point I came across and is a good issue to mention is that "if (list) items have specific dates a chronological format is sometimes preferable", per MOS:LIST#Organization. Furthermore, navboxes are designed to be at the bottom of an article after the appendices (see also, refs, external links), not in a content section (see Wikipedia:Navigation templates).
Another point which I came across, and which would have been better to point out earlier in this discussion, is that "Alphabetical ordering does not provide any additional value to a category containing the same article links." (from WP:NAVBOX; there's already Category:Los Angeles City Attorneys) That reinforces what I said earlier about including the dates in the template and what I just said about not needing a second listing of attorneys by surname. So the article should contain either a listing by chronological order (most appropriate for an officeholder) or a sortable table, but it should not contain a chronological table plus an alphabetical listing using the navbox. (Note: I may not be back for a couple days.) AHeneen ( talk) 07:16, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Despite my feeling that two tables (each serving a different purpose) are the best way to handle this page, I have agreed in the spirit of consensus to accept a single table, but the one proposed is not user-friendly and attempts to do too much in one place — that is; it provides for an alphabetical listing in the first column and also for a chronological listing in the second. As to necessity of sorting the first column, certainly a Z-Y-X sorting order is never required. As to the second column, it may or may not be advantageous for the names to be listed in reverse chronological order, but I don't see why the reader cannot simply scroll to the end of the column to see the latest name (if the column were listed chronologically to begin with). That is why I believe two separate tables are needed — a columnar table for the chronology and a horizontal table for the alphabet – one that can instantly be scanned in a glance. As AHeneen said above, "the ease of navigating by readers should be the primary concern." This proposed combined table, in my opinion, isn't up to the task. Yours, GeorgeLouis ( talk) 16:11, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
@ GeorgeLouis: The two links are places you can start a discussion if you don't like the sortable table. They aren't there for you to simply read. There's also a clear consensus to have the table sortable both chronologically and alphabetically (three editors in support, only you are opposed). The article is still a stub. AHeneen ( talk) 05:21, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Place new discussion below: 18:59, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Following is the sortable table which I prefer, with the first column made non-sortable:
Name | Term Click to reverse chronology |
---|---|
Benjamin Hayes | 1850–1851 |
William G. Dryden | 1851–1852 |
Joseph Lancaster Brent | 1852–1853 |
Charles E. Carr | 1853 |
Joseph Lancaster Brent | 1853 |
Isaac Hartman | 1854–1855 |
Lewis Granger | 1855–1856 |
Cameron E. Thom | 1856–1858 |
James H. Lader | 1858–1859 |
Samuel F. Reynolds | 1859–1861 |
James H. Lader | 1861–1862 |
Myer Joseph Newmark | 1862 |
Alfred Chapman | 1862–1865 |
James H. Lader | 1865 |
Andrew J. King | 1866–1868 |
Charles H. Larrabee | 1868 (did not serve) [a] |
William McPherson | 1868–1870 |
Frank H. Howard | 1870–1872 |
Aurelius W. Hutton | 1872–1876 |
John Franklin Godfrey | 1876–1880 |
Henry T. Hazard | 1880–1882 |
Walter D. Stephenson | 1882–1884 |
James Wilfred McKinley | 1884–1886 |
J.C. Daly | 1886–1888 |
Charles H. McFarland | 1888–1894 |
William Ellsworth Dunn | 1894–1898 |
Walter F. Haas | 1898–1900 |
W.B. Mathews | 1900–1906 |
Leslie R. Hewitt | 1906–1910 |
John W. Shenk | 1910–1913 |
Alfred Lee Stephens | 1913–1919 |
Charles S. Burnell | 1919–1921 |
Jess E. Stephens | 1921–1929 |
Erwin P. Warner | 1929–1933 |
Ray L. Chesebro | 1933–1953 |
Roger Arnebergh | 1953–1973 |
Burt Pines | 1973–1981 |
Ira Reiner | 1981–1985 |
James Hahn | 1985–2001 |
Rocky Delgadillo | 2001–2009 |
Carmen Trutanich | 2009–2013 |
Mike Feuer | 2013–present |
— BeenAroundAWhile ( talk) 19:04, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha>
tags or {{efn}}
templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}}
template or {{notelist}}
template (see the
help page).