Talk:List of governors of California

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured listList of governors of California 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
December 25, 2005Featured list candidateNot promoted
July 28, 2007Featured list candidateNot promoted
August 21, 2007Featured list candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured list

Jerry Brown picture[edit]

Surely someone has a better picture of Jerry Brown than that goofy painting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.36.148.190 (talk) 04:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Cali was never a territory... (I'm pretty sure)[edit]

Does anyone know the source for "Governor of the Territory of California, 1849-1850...1849-1850: Peter H. Burnett (Democrat)"? It's my understanding that California was never an incorporated territory, it went straight from military government to statehood. Congress never passed the organic act necessary for territoryhood. jengod 11:09, Feb 7, 2004 (UTC)

Uncredited source[edit]

I don't see it say anywhere that the likenesses are those displayed in the Capitol, as chosen by the governors themselves. 66.218.54.163 (talk) 03:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you mean; are you saying this is true, and we should include it? --Golbez (talk) 04:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from WP:FLC[edit]

In the process of answering a question, I came across this list, which appears to be complete and well sourced. Is it feature worthy? - Mgm|(talk) 12:19, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - it is pretty good, but (i) the lead is rather short. For example, it would be worth briefly discussing details such as length of term, timing of elections and taking office, etc; (ii) there are no references (are the external links references?); (iii) the "races" table is incomplete in that it does not contain the numbers of votes for all races. Perhaps it should be reordered by place in the vote and headings added ("First", "Second", "Third", etc)? The boxes could also be coloured by party (although hard for Earl Warren in 1946!) as in the first table; (iv) the first table is in chronological order, but the second is in in reverse chronological order - I would prefer the second to be in the same order as the first; (v) it is not clear what the notes in the second table ("x of y districts") means. What happened to the other districts? These notes also make the first column wider than it needs to be - perhaps a "notes" column at the end, or a footnote? (vi) Is there a template for the "List of Governors" of the other 49 states? (I know the category does this, but a template eliminates one click). -- ALoan (Talk) 13:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Nice list. Did anybody know that Upton Sinclair ran for governor of California? Fascinating stuff. Anyway, I second the comments of ALoan above. I assume the external links are the references. If so, they should be listed under a reference section. Also, a few pictures would be nice. --Sophitus 19:11, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmmm, apparently it wasn't as good as I thought it was. I'll copy these comments to the talk page of the list. - Mgm|(talk) 10:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - In regards to the "x of y districts", the reason I did that was because my source was a New York Times newspaper article on the elections, the day after them, and I couldn't find a more accurate result number after all the votes from 100% of the districts were counted.Cmdrbond 02:17, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Voter Turnout[edit]

Voter Turnout

Here is a list of state voter turnout percentages for presidential and gubernatorial primary and general elections.

Year Election Turnout Candidates

Nov. 1994 Gubernatorial general 60.2% * Wilson-Brown

June 1994 Gubernatorial primary 35.0%

Nov. 1992 Presidential general 75.3% Bush-Clinton

June 1992 Presidential primary 47.4%

Nov. 1990 Gubernatorial general 58.6% Wilson-Feinstein

June 1990 Gubernatorial primary 41.5%

Nov. 1988 Presidential general 72.8% Dukakis-Bush

June 1988 Presidential primary 46.1%

Nov. 1986 Gubernatorial general 60.0% Deukmejian-Bradley

June 1986 Gubernatorial primary 38.6%

Nov. 1984 Presidential general 73.9% Reagan-Mondale

June 1984 Presidential primary 49.3%

Nov. 1982 Gubernatorial general 69.7% Deukmejian-Bradley

June 1982 Gubernatorial primary 52.9%

Nov. 1980 Presidential general 76.5% Reagan-Carter

June 1980 Presidential primary 64.2%

Nov. 1978 Gubernatorial general 68.7% Brown-Younger

June 1978 Gubernatorial primary 74.1%

Nov. 1976 Presidential general 81.1% Carter-Ford

June 1976 Presidential primary 71.2%

Nov. 1974 Gubernatorial general 62.6% Brown-Flournoy

June 1974 Gubernatorial primary 51.7%

Nov. 1972 Presidential general 80.4% Nixon-McGovern

June 1972 Presidential primary 68.9%

  • Early estimate by secretary of state's office

Source: Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder

Seems your source is flawed; Nov. 1986 was in no way "Deukmejian-Bradley" unless you consider that when history is written by the victors, nobody gives a flying rat's ass about anybody else anymore. 66.218.54.163 (talk) 03:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Earl Warren[edit]

Please clarify the following statement:

(elected as Republican in 1942, 1950; as Republican, Democrat, and Progressive in 1946)

How could he have run under 3 different parties in one year? --Asbl 19:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In 1946, Warren was nominated by and was the candidate of all three parties. From the Earl Warren entry:
In 1946, Warren managed the singular feat of winning the Republican, Democratic, and Progressive primary elections and thus ran unopposed in the 1946 general election.
Some states, notably New York, allow electoral fusion, which allows a candidate to seek and accept the nomination of more than one party. Acsenray 14:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Problem w/1974 election numbers[edit]

which are as follows:

Jerry Brown Democrat 1,609,298 50.1%

Houston I. Flournoy Republican 2,055,586 47.3%

I'm no mathematician but I see an error. Can someone supply the real numbers? --Jfruh (talk) 20:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the article no longer lists election results, but for the sake of Jfruh's mathematical confidence at least, the results were as shown below. ChrisJBenson (talk) 06:51, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
California Gubernatorial Election 1974
Name Party Votes Percentage
Jerry Brown Democratic 3,131,648 50.11%
Houston I. Flournoy Republican 2,952,954 47.25%
Edmon V. Kaiser American Independent 83,869 1.34%
Elizabeth Keathley Peace and Freedom 75,004 1.20%
Others 5,895 0.09%
Total 6,249,370 100.00%

Automatic addition of "class=FA"[edit]

A bot has added class=FA to the WikiProject banners on this page, as it's listed as a featured lists. If you see a mistake, please revert, and leave a note on the bot's talk page. Thanks, BOT Giggabot (talk) 03:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:GeorgeDeukmejian.jpg[edit]

The image Image:GeorgeDeukmejian.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --00:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sort[edit]

It would be nice to make the 1st table sortable as the 2nd table is, but trying it results in all the columns disappearing when one column is sorted. Not a good outcome. Hmains (talk) 04:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right. It's the fact that lieutenant governors sometimes split governor rows. I hear they're working on a new version of the sortable script that takes that into account, but until then it's forced to be unsortable. (However, what really needs sorting? Name: The category is alphabetical. Party: Only a few options that are easily seen, so easy to count. Start/end date? Already sorted by that. Terms? I can see some use for this, but it's about the only one.) --Golbez (talk) 04:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gavin Newsom[edit]

Newsom has chosen to complete his term as San Francisco Mayor, which expires on January 10th, 2011. According to the California Constitution, oath or no oath, he'll become the Lieutenant Governor of California at 11:AM PST (19:00 UTC). Is it legal for Neesom to hold both elective offices con-currently over the next week (Jan 3-10)? GoodDay (talk) 19:15, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many people delay resigning from being a governor to become a senator or representative; they don't become a member of congress until their credentials are accepted and, I believe, they are sworn in. I don't think you can as easily put off an election to an executive position, however. If a governor were elected to be president, he would become president precisely when the law proscribes, rather than when he decides it. I don't know if that would count as an automatic resignation, though. So the questions are: Is it possible for Newsom to delay becoming Lt. Gov (being an executive office elected by the people, my guess is no), and is he legally allowed to serve as both a mayor and in the executive at the same time? (This, I do not know) --Golbez (talk) 21:32, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
User:Corvus cornix helpfully linked me this post [1] which links to this article [2] about how it may be a legal thing he's doing. I can't read it in depth at the moment, just wanted to offer it. --Golbez (talk) 21:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We could probably put in some sort of footnote that says his term doesn't start till he takes the oath, which he is holding off on. Corvus cornixtalk 21:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's also an apparent disagreement over at Abel Maldonado article. He wasn't elected LtG last November, so according to the State Constitution, he ceased to be LtG today at 11:00 AM PST. Yet he's still got his LtG website up. GoodDay (talk) 22:36, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps not; the Sac Bee says, "The state constitution says the current officeholder stays in the post "until a successor qualifies," a phrase both Newsom's attorneys and Maldonado interpret as the new guy taking the oath of office." Unless the state courts disagree, I say we run with it. --Golbez (talk) 15:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, there is there is nothing about 11:00 AM whatsoever in the California Constitution.http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_5 Indeed, this is why Ronald Reagan was sworn in as Governor a few minutes after midnight, as his predecessor, Pat Brown, remained Governor until his successor (Reagan) took office.See bottom of page 172 to top of page 173 of Governor Reagan: His Rise to Power by Lou Cannon. OCNative (talk) 05:44, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Newsom got sworn in today, so he's officially LtGov. He's on the state LtGov page, too. Corvus cornixtalk 23:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Contradiction regarding Jerry Brown and term limits[edit]

Regarding Jerry Brown and the Constitutional term limit, the article contradicts itself at least twice. The last paragraph of the "Governors" section before the table includes these two statements:

  1. true In 1990, [...] a constitutional amendment implemented a term limit of two consecutive terms [....]
  2. false Jerry Brown was able to be elected to a third term in 2010 because his previous terms were before the term limit was enacted.

The last of the footnotes is about Jerry Brown and states (in part):

  2. true He will be unable to run in 2018, due to term limits.
  3. false His fourth (and final) term expires on January 7, 2019.

Assuming the text of statement #1 is exactly correct, then statement #2 is false. The reason that Jerry Brown was able to be elected (and serve) for a third term in 2010 (and indeed for a fourth term in 2014) was NOT because his previous terms were before the term limit was introduced. He was able to be elected in 2010 and 2014 for a much simpler reason. They didn't violate the limit of two consecutive terms, no matter when it was introduced.

Continuing with the assumption that #1 is correct, then the last footnote is incorrect. Statement #3 is correct. He will be unable to run in 2018 due to the Constitutional term limit. However the second part is not correct. He can run for (and if elected, serve as) Governor for a fifth term (although not in 2018). His term that ends in January 2019 is not necessarily his final term.

With thanks from ChrisJBenson (talk) 13:41, 21 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]

The Constitution itself states, "No Governor may serve more than 2 terms.". #1 would appear to be wrong. Not sure if I did that or someone else did, but it has no requirement that the terms be consecutive to be limited. So it would seem that #1 was incorrect. --Golbez (talk) 19:40, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 7 external links on List of Governors of California. 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 22:35, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite?[edit]

We need to discuss this. I don't want to just revert yet another unilateral reformat of a featured list, but that this was done without any discussion is a bit irksome.

  • All footnotes for why a governor's term changed out of turn are gone. No more mention of if they died in office, etc.
  • Colored text is generally considered a very bad idea on Wikipedia.
  • If someone wants to know a governor's lifespan and current age or age when he died (why? why not when elected?) can click the article.
  • We absolutely do not need BOTH the table of governors by age, AND their age/term length in the table.
  • Please don't rely on rowspans to put lieutenant governors and terms into multiple governors; my experience has shown this usage of them to be unreliable.
  • Why are the names bold

I'm trying to be objective and not in an ownership mindset but as it is, there is a ton of redundant data presented in poor methods and I would absolutely vote against this in featured list. I would very much like the authors of this rewrite to respond to my concerns here. --Golbez (talk) 13:58, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I forgot to add daggers to Bartlett and Rolph to indicate death. This table format is, by my measure, superior. Lists for Presidents of the United States, Vice Presidents, Chief Justices, Speakers of the House, all have this format, including portraits for all, period of service, lifespan, etc. This places most relevant information of name, lifespan + age, party, order of service, period of service, time in office, term of governorship, previous office, and lieutenants governor all together. We are fortunate to have free-use photographs or paintings for each Governor, and such is the only fair way to display them. Previously, the list had only a small pick of governors, which is WP:BIAS, in my opinion; why not show J. Neely Johnson, 2nd youngest gov. in U.S. history? Why not Gray Davis, 1 of 2 recalled govs. in history? Why not Pat Brown, perhaps the most accomplished gov. of all? By showing the portrait of each, we need not select from a handful of govs, which negates bias of whom we choose, and there is only so much vertical space. The Presidents & Vice Presidents lists use rowspan for the corresponding served-with, and for Presidents, same goes with term of office. The previous table showed Latham served 1/2 term, and Low 1/2, but Latham was only in office 5 of those days. By using the term of the office, like the Presidents list, we show that Low completed the term served by Latham; furthermore, by using a rowspan, we can show that, recently, McCarthy, Bustamante, and Maldonado all served under multiple governors. As for bolding, the bolding does put emphasis on the name, and I don't see how it hurts in any way.   Spartan7W §   14:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Answering in order:
  • There are many other things to indicate, like resignations. There is no indication in the article as to why Burnett's term ended early, for example. Was this omitted by accident or considered not necessary?
  • Those lists are older. This one was designed and featured more recently.
  • "Portraits for all" is something that the previous format allowed for; when the list was done, however, they weren't available, so the partial list was required. You will see on some other featured governor lists that, when possible, they do include all portraits.
  • Your accusation of bias taking up a full third of your paragraph is ... a bad thing. Maybe not leap to an accusation of bias against or for certain governors and perhaps understand there was a technical or logical reason for it? (Furthermore, that links is to systemic bias - pray tell, what is the systemic bias present in picking a few governors scattered around the timeline that we had photos of?)
  • I have actually been considering switching from the fractional terms to a list of numbered terms, like this, and in fact you will note that was one change I didn't complain about. Simply the use of complex rowspans, which I think should be avoided.
  • The MOS I believes indicates that links should not be bolded, and also they are not the subject of the article. Bold is not to be used for emphasis.
  • The remaining issues of the lifespan (why is this at all needed? or their age at death/current age?), the link to the party identification being colored, etc. remain unremarked upon. As well as the hugely redundant information now, with some tidbits (length of term for example) being in three tables.
  • Finally, there's the notion of drastically altering a featured list without any discussion beforehand, and then accusing the person who made it featured of bias, so please pardon me if my politeness seems strained at moments. --Golbez (talk) 15:25, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This list was promoted in 2007, some eight years past. The fact that portraits of all governors are available, but were not all included, is bias. In 2007, when only a few were available, not so, but when all are available, it is of value and necessity to include them all, so the average reader doesn't think that those present prior to my edits were of increased significance in their service, which might not be the case.
  • I overlooked daggers for death and resignations, that was a mistake, but they can be easily returned.
  • The rowspans show which terms, which lieutenants, and in Johnson's case, which party's passed through different 2/4 year term blocks.
  • I believe boldface for each name falls within the lines of this: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Text_formatting#Other_uses
  • I think lifespan is both: a) harmless & b) valuable. You can see how long they lived, and that's not irrelevant information. It does no injury, people are curious as to those facts. Tables organize facts efficiently.
  • Again, this list was featured in 2007, and the version which was featured then was quite different than prior to my edits. Additionally, various table lists here were merged from other pages quite recently, thus constituting a significant change. My edits fall under WP:BOLD, I believe they are valuable, and significant improvements, but that does not mean refinements cannot be made upon them.   Spartan7W §   15:46, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"The fact that portraits of all governors are available, but were not included, is bias." No, it is not. I was unaware that they had since become available; please do not conflate benign ignorance with willful bias.
We need more than a simple dagger or symbol for resignations; it seems useful to the reader to indicate why someone resigned. Was it for bad things (indictment) or good things (elected to higher office)? Also, we need to indicate why their replacements did so. Were they elected in a special election? Ascended from lower office?
I am aware of what the rowspans are used for, yes; I'm saying that my experience with complex rowspans like that has been that they aren't trustworthy, that browsers (though in 2007) tended not to always render them correctly. Times likely have changed.
Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Text_formatting#Other_uses indicates bolding redirect targets, and has nothing to do with bolding every entry of a list. Where are you seeing this scenario?
If they are curious about those facts then the link is right there for them to click. Including the governor's hometown would also be harmless and valuable. So would including their spouse's name. Or what percentage of the vote they received. Or their approval rating at the time they left office. But none of this is explicitly useful for a list of governors. That is information more specific to the people themselves.
Yes, the recent merged articles shouldn't have been merged. I'm not defending the lower tables at all, in fact I'm using this as a time to complain about them as well.
Yes, you were bold, and I had strongly considered carrying out the second part of the holy trinity, reverting, but no, there are some good ideas here, so if I go through it will be with a scalpel rather than a machete. I just wanted to discuss first before I ripped out the lifespans, bolds, and superfluous coloring. (Also not a fan of combining start and end dates in one cell; it works fine when there's a portrait, but for lists without portraits they needlessly make each row taller, and I'd rather keep similar styles for these lists) --Golbez (talk) 18:25, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not insinuating that it was intentional bias, but rather the nature of only a small selection of portraits when there are 38 men who have held the office, is a form of bias itself. Why have 6 former republicans but only 2 former democrats? Why is Earl Warren present twice, but Pat Brown not at all? These are things which may be seen as biased one way or another. I'm not saying it was intentional, but by including all portraits, now, we avoid any possible bias in a gallery of governors.

  • For bolding, it is neither explicitly prohibited nor enumerated in that section. However, boldface redirects to the main article about each governor, and in this case, a full row of that person's info in the table is akin to a paragraph or section
  • Good. They should be separate pages.
  • For term start and end, being in the same column box is, in my opinion, a little cleaner, as like an infobox, you can immediately see the period of service. If you scroll down to the bottom, where you can't see the column labels, if you put start and end together, you see the continual line of succession clearly, as opposed to darting eyes back and forth.   Spartan7W §   20:21, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm curious, where did you find the colors you used for the parties? --Golbez (talk) 21:44, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For the Democrats, #34AAE0 is the official party color, used in their logo, see: here. For the Republicans, the color also comes from their official logo and party materials, I just went into photoshop and picked up the color hexacode. The Know Nothings & Progressive came from the meta template, I just preferred using a consistent style of codes instead of templates.   Spartan7W §   03:22, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nice thing about templates though, if we decide to change the color, we can change it on all usages at once. I think that if Wikipedia is going to use this new color, it should be proposed on the template or project page, rather than done on a per-article basis. --Golbez (talk) 20:10, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Golbez: This has been done before. Problem is, that template is used for various applications wherein the color doesn't work very well without formatting text and links to white text. Its simple enough this way. Also, for the notes about why they left office, put a break below the number so the reference doesn't move the number over to the side.   Spartan7W §   01:51, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There shouldn't be text on color anyway, so that's not a concern; you can see with my recent modifications that I found a way out of that. PS, this is where I ask to justify the addition of born/died/age to the table. :) I would love to remove it, as it's extraneous information which has no bearing on the list. --Golbez (talk) 02:27, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another question: class="date". What does this do? I don't see .date in the javscript, does it have other semantic meaning? --Golbez (talk) 03:32, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don;t know what you're referring to there. But on the dates note, I see no harm done by listing lifespan and ages. People like that kind of stuff, and it isn't irrelevant. The portrait makes a sizable amount of white space in the name column, why not fill it in? Its not like is messes up formatting or is completely useless.   Spartan7W §   04:21, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You added "" to the date fields: [3]
You see no harm, but I see no benefit. I can think of a lot of things that have no harm but a lot of people would see no benefit: First lady, previous jobs, future jobs, place of birth, place of residence, poll numbers, election results. But these have less to do with the office and more to do with the person. I prefer the list to have only that information explicitly relevant to the list: Who was governor, when were they, and how they got into office. Also, why do we care how old living governors are now, rather than how old they were when they took office? Or how old they were when they died?
I really hope I don't come across as badgering, it's absolutely not my intent. And I do see the point of filling up the white space, but there are other ways around that - such as making the portraits smaller (75px seems a good size). --Golbez (talk) 05:14, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
First time I've seen the new page and, um, ugggh. There is no need for how long they lived or age. It is irrelevant. Page is about a list of governors, not about the details of the governor's life. Don't use days in office as it is hard to compute into years and is redundant info. No need for bold and it violates MOS:BOLD. The images and boxes are way, way, way too large. This is another example of the mobilification of the web.... Make it so one item fits on the screen of a phone. This results in long scrolling and not seeing how one governor fits with others. Better to see multiple items in a list. I went from seeing 7 governors at one time to 2 1/2 governors. It's better to keep term started and term ended in two separate columns for accessibility reasons, but isn't necessary to do. Bgwhite (talk) 05:07, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What are the accessibility concerns in merging the term in/out columns? --Golbez (talk) 05:16, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's minor and not a reason to revert to the old way. Two different data items in one cell. It's slightly harder to move around and if one only wanted to listen to several 'term end', you also have to listen to the 'term start'. It also comes from my previous computer life... single cell, single value. Again, not a reason to revert. Bgwhite (talk) 08:12, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I agree, cell::value makes sense, from my current computer life. However, there are possible benefits... one, by forcing them to new lines, you fill up the new vertical space caused by adding portraits. Two, it creates a larger cell which could potentially be used to include passage information (like 'died', 'resigned', etc), though I haven't fully attempted that yet. There's also worth discussing the situation of not needing both dates: In 99% of circumstances, the beginning of one person's term of office is instant upon the end of the previous person's. But, for that 1%, the sudden jump to a wider column to explain the discrepancy would be jarring. (However, you are convincing me to go back to two cells...) --Golbez (talk) 14:06, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The term start/term end atleast have the same data type and are related. The governor's column of name, date of birth, date of death and age are totally different.
What I do like about the new term format is what you have already mentioned, fills ups the new vertical space. The Governor of California article "looks better" and takes up less space than the Governor of Alabama article with regards to the term start/term end columns.
I do like having both term start/term end mentioned. That 1% is probably higher.
I do like having photos for every governor.
I do like the new column of "Previous office". It's interesting to see where new governor's come from. Saying 31st or 44th isn't necessary. I'm torn on the date. One one hand it shouldn't be there and isn't necessary. On the other hand, there maybe a gap of several years between offices. If column has to be removed for whatever reason, this should be the first to go. Bgwhite (talk) 19:54, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My main concern with previous office is that it can be subjective. (this is also why I've turned my back on the 'other high offices' table, though I still waffle on that one) Is it previous office, or previous highest office? Is there a time limit? For example, Pardee's previous office is from eight years prior. And it seems to only include government offices; no mention here of Reagan being president of SAG, though Stoneman gets a military mention. Finally, it seems to me to be more about the person than the office, though I see your point when you say it's "where they come from" so it does in fact have some list-level relevance.
I'm not arguing for just having start term... but I just realized that in the rare circumstances where the next person's term begins after the previous person's term ends, there should properly be an interregnum row. (As for the situation we see in some confederate states of overlapping terms.. .. let's not go there yet.)
Finally, what do you think about listing how each term ended in some way? Maybe not in its own column, but maybe ... in the term column? Not sure. We already have notes for when terms ended prematurely, but there's nothing indicating whether a term ended because the person chose to run but lost, declined to run, or was term limited. Now, linking the elections fixes a large amount of that - if you want to know why the guy's out of office, just click the link - but the same could be argued that linking the governors removes the need for the information on their previous office. --Golbez (talk) 21:42, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think part color should coincide with the numbering. This is done for Presidents and Vice Presidents now, and I don't see any rule that precludes it, nor do I see any programming problem associated with it. Also, showing the order of service for preceding offices is relevant.   Spartan7W §   02:19, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Popping in the background color #34AAE0 and foreground color #FFFFFF into the colour contrast check indicates that it is not accessible. That's a rule that precludes it. Instead of looking for the correct color text so that the colors are accessible, we should avoid putting text over color in general. It's not needed. (And, it requires certain technical gymnastics for the Hiram Bingham row, which you did quite well with but it shouldn't have been necessary) --Golbez (talk) 02:38, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Avoiding color in general is a good rule. Spartan7W, not sure if you know the link or not, but... WP:COLOR.
Golbez, I understand your concerns about 'previous office'. I too was thinking the same thing about Reagan. Also thinking about Brown, should Governor or Attorney General be listed?
'How each term ended': Not sure. On one hand, there will be alot of "didn't run" or "died" listed. On the other hand, it does make why more prominent. If I had to choose between term ended or previous office, I'd choose term ended. Term ended has more to do with the office of governor. Does make it clear a person lost/won an election to lose/win the governor's office. Also makes it clear a Lt. Governor won an election and not thru resignation/death, though that is currently implied on the table. It also has the added benefit of linking to an election article. Bgwhite (talk) 21:53, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The term column actually handles that 'linking to election' article now, so it kind of makes a 'how term ended' column superfluous. If a term ended through death or resignation, it's already going to be noted in the term column; and for everyone else, the term number will [ideally] link to the appropriate election. You can already see that in play here. Unfortunately, most elections more than a few decades ago are not on Wikipedia yet. The term column carries a lot of weight for being so little, it's quite useful and I thank Spartan for showing me that it could be done (rowspans terrified me before but I know I understand why they work the way they do) --Golbez (talk) 22:04, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me the main columns to discuss here are:

  • Portrait: What size? This uses 150; I've been using 75; we should settle on one. 150 seems to big; maybe 100?
  • Term in Office vs Term Start/Term End. I see merits both ways, and, by doing it this way and forcing it vertical (start[br]dash[br]end) that helps fill up the new space.
  • Previous office. I consider it subjective and a bit difficult to maintain. I was working on adding it to Alabama, and wouldn't you believe but there's not perfect documentation of who did what in the early 19th century. Also, there needs to be rules for... well, for example, one guy had been a private citizen for 8 years but before that he'd been a U.S. senator from another state. Do we say that? Do we say both? Do we just say private citizen? I think that if you want to know what someone was before they became governor, their article and the article on the election are better resources than we can add to this list.
  • Length of office in days: Please no. Superfluous, trivial, adds nothing to an understanding.
  • Reason for leaving: I really don't think this is a good idea, it just seems like a good mirror to "previous office" and if we have one, we should have the other. But I think both columns are ably handled by linking to the election information, and the effort is better spent adding info on older elections.

There's also the question of the lower tables, "Other high offices" and "Living governors". Any comments on whether or not to keep or scuttle those?

I would really like to get the format changes tied down before moving on to new states... I've added it to everything up to Delaware (except Connecticut) and next is Georgia and I hate Georgia (look at all the question marks I left in it last time I tried to fix it up) so I'm taking a break while we tie this down. --Golbez (talk) 22:04, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if my responses are out of order:
  • I think 150px works well on desktop, and the mobile version + app resize everything anyways, so thats not a major concern
  • I like placing both start and finish together, so you can scroll down and see the perpetuity of the office. Again, things like this have to be formatted once by an experienced editor (us), and aren't subject to change
  • Depends on the state. In California its easy to see the previous office, and isn't subjective. Same for a state like New York. If too many governors have none, or it just isn't clear or presently source able, exclude it
  • I dunno, people like trivia, and it doesn't hurt. Personally, I absolutely despise that overfilled table at the bottom, but including a row for it here doesn't hurt, and its especially interesting for Jerry Brown.
  • Reason for leaving prematurely is fine for resignations, of which there are few. Deaths can be done with a typographic dagger very easily, no problem.
While I prefer the colored number rows with white text (and I think that accesbility tool is bs, because its harder to see black on #34AAE0 than white), its not important. The way it is presently is a very good table, especially for well-documented states, and ones like Hawaii, Alaska, Arizona with very recent histories. For state like New York, Massachusetts, most governors have portraits, and most are pre-1923 and not copyrighted, and all 1923-present ones have at least one photograph to use. @Golbez: Hawaii is my next goal, short practice before going after New York; NY will be a challenge because David Paterson had like 5 or 6 lieutenants, thats just a pain. I'm currently working on reforming several articles to GA status at least in that area, but getting sources is time consuming.   Spartan7W §   04:34, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
re previous office: It's a little subjective. For example, in some cases it's clearly "highest office served" since at least one had ceased being the 'previous office' more than five years earlier. Or maybe it's "what they would be most known for", in which case that still applies. But then what about William Stephens? you note his previous job as lieutenant governor, yet before that he was in the U.S. House. I guess what I want to know is, are there set rules for this. When I was doing the 'other high offices', my rule was: U.S. or C.S. legislature, U.S. district court or higher; ambassador; governor; high executive (president, VP, cabinet); major foreign office (quite rare, but stuff like president of Hawaii). Period. No exceptions, which meant including pre-1970s postmasters general, but excluding post-1970s ones because they were no longer in the cabinet. No mayorships. No military posts. Do you have rules for what offices should be included here?
re days: Yes, people live trivia, but this is exceptionally trivial. For the random person who truly cares about that, it's easy enough to find a date calculator on the web and punch it in. We don't need to take up space in the table for that sub-1% group of people who come to this article. It does hurt, it takes up space and makes the table look less intelligent, in my opinion. There is such a thing as too trivial. I despise the overfilled table too, which is why it too should be deleted. Also, why is it interesting for Jerry Brown? You're saying the number of days specifically is interesting, not the fact that he's serving again, so ... why?
re colors: It also gives a failing grade to black on blue, though not as strongly one. Trust the tool. Also, this isn't necessarily about how well *you* can see it. It's for people who have problems seeing distinct colors. --Golbez (talk) 05:37, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 150px is too big. You only see a couple of governors and it becomes on long scroll. 75px is fine right now as it doesn't cause too much blank space, unless a cell needs more space. Also, we shouldn't be setting px anymore and is now against MOS. However, I haven't done the new way with tables, only infoboxes and images by themselves.
  • Trivia is interesting, but it can become overwhelming. The key is to know what and how to add. Wish it was a science.
  • Accessibility tool for colour is not for you. It is for the color blind and there are different types of colour blindness. Black on light colour is the easiest for the colour blind and old farts. Colour without purpose is just superfluous.
  • Leave off previous office. Golbez' arguments won me over.
  • Dagger's for death should not be used because of accessibility reasons. A dagger doesn't come across correctly on screen readers.
  • I really, really like the new and improved term column. The term column has different info than the term start/term end column. It's not a pick only one situation. Both provide unique information.
  • Current living governor should stay. Same reason living former presidents are important.
  • I like the higher offices table for the same reason I like the previous office table. You can't include the info in the table into the main table. Jerry Brown is an interesting case, but he isn't the most interesting one. Ronald Reagan became president. Earl Warren was one of the most important Supreme Court justices. Maybe remove the cases for ambassador. Only keep Representative, Senator, Cabinet, Supreme Court. Bgwhite (talk) 05:30, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have waffled heavily on the previous offices table. My rules are above, but I'll reprint here: U.S. or C.S. legislature, U.S. district court or higher; ambassador; lt governor of another state; governor; high executive (president, VP, cabinet); major foreign office. So... to match it to what you're suggesting would restrict the court to supreme court, and remove ambassador. I can live with that; ambassadorships tend to be political appointments anyway. I'll also toy around with formatting it (don't need to repeat their term in office, for example, and I can integrate the source links). Maybe I'll also add 'mayor of major city', but of course how to define 'major' is key. Maybe it has to have been in the top 100 of that census. (Sorry, Sarah; no Wasilla.)
I still dislike the 'living governors' list but people seem to care about this stuff, despite it being pretty easy to find on your own (open the articles for the governors who served in the past 80 years, if you really care that much?) so I guess I won't fight it. --Golbez (talk) 05:46, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how previous office can be subjective at all. We are talking about where they were before they became Governor, nothing else. We're not choosing the highest office before, just the most recent office they held. If they were elected, this is relevant as it shows their prior experience, and if they succeeded, then being lieutenant is also relevant. The U.S. order of precedence for U.S. military ceremonies puts Senators above Governors, because they are federal-level, although I think Gov. is more prestigious, and important.

  • Plenty of infoboxes and tables use daggers to indicate death or other significant footnotes.   Spartan7W §   15:07, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe they shouldn't. And anyway, since we have the notes in the term column, we don't need the daggers. As for previous office, is there a time limit on this? For example, let's say that Jerry Brown hadn't recently been AG; would we say governor despite that having been 30 years previous? Or would we go with Mayor of Oakland, since that was much more recent? You might point out that these issues are rare, and they are, but they do pop up, and they pop up more often in other states. --Golbez (talk) 15:26, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It should be the directly preceding office. In Brown's case, I included that he was the 34th Governor because he is the only nonconsecutive Governor in California's history, and it is significant to point that out, as a special exception. he was AG right before, and Mayor of Oakland before that, but having held this office previously, it warrant special exception.   Spartan7W §   15:53, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the 'previous office'... I've been trying to work this into Alabama and it's really difficult. Like, one example is, Confederate Congressman, but then appointed to state circuit court, but then private citizen for five years before becoming governor. The most important office there is congress, the most recent office is circuit court, but his immediate job prior to being governor was private practice. I'm thinking maybe... the better way to handle this is to list all major prior offices? That way you get a feel for why the person became governor? If we list them at all? I'm still split on this, adding it to Alabama was an experiment to see how it goes, and so far it's going pretty poorly. I'd love some insight from @Spartan7W: and @Bgwhite:. --Golbez (talk) 20:12, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After spending an hour last night trying out an "all previous offices" on my sandbox I truly hate the endeavor and I want to remove it from all lists. :P The amount of research needed to definitively say "this is what they were" while at the same time picking and choosing which offices count was beyond frustrating. California might have worked out cleanly, but there are 49 other states and they will not be nearly so neat. --Golbez (talk) 14:05, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It should be a state-by-state thing. Hawaii works well, because of its recent nature, etc. If they never held an office before, just put none there. But if there's 30 without information available, don't.   Spartan7W §   15:03, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that they didn't hold office; it's just a lot of busy work to figure out what their immediate prior office was, and how to pick which one, because it can be subjective. I'm back to not necessarily seeing the utility. And I would dearly love for all the governor lists to have the exact same format, consistency is awesome and not at all a hobgoblin in the right situations. --Golbez (talk) 15:26, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think they should have the same style, yes, but exact formatting of columns can vary depending on present information.   Spartan7W §   18:50, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't about formatting columns, though? This is about whether or not the column should exist. --Golbez (talk) 19:54, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I meant formatting of the table itself, I.e. Style, basic layout, etc. It should be case-by-case for previous office. The previous office column is interesting information if it can be used appropriately.   Spartan7W §   19:57, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Acting lieutenant governors[edit]

There's no constitutional provision that I see for what to do when the office of lieutenant governor is vacant. It appears that the acting ones noted in this list were presidents of the senate. Is there a law that specifies it? Basically, my concern is, if there's an automatic accession to "acting lt gov" then all vacancies should read with the name of the president of the senate, right? Except an official list [4] includes two vacancies. Do we know why the office was vacant at this time and not filled with an acting governor? --Golbez (talk) 20:10, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The issue has never arisen. The Governor, today, can appoint an Lt. to fill the position, like Schwarzenegger did with Maldonado. But I'm not sure with before. I assume like the pre-1947 presidential succession, where the Pro Temp of the Senate is first in line, as he fills the position of the Lt. in that chamber. Although today, the Lt. Gov. doesn't have the right under the CA Senate rules to preside without the Senate's invitation, which I'm pretty sure is unconstitutional, but no Lt. Gov. has ever sought to use his office, ever, at all, so who cares.   Spartan7W §   04:39, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But the issue has arisen - the official list shows two vacancies, and several acting, and Maldonado is not marked as acting. So why are some acting, and why were some vacant? --Golbez (talk) 05:17, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On a different note, we have to keep the term span dates for McCarthy and Bustamante because their terms overlapped gubernatorial terms, especially three-term McCarthy. Additionally, marking January 10th as end for Maldonado and begin for Newsom helps stress how little of Bustamante's term overlapped with Brown's.   Spartan7W §   15:13, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I'll go through and populate dates where relevant. --Golbez (talk) 15:28, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Golbez: FYI, I'm halfway done with New Mexico's Govs right now, so you don't tackle them and waste your time.   Spartan7W §   00:49, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of Governors of California. 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) 08:22, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Governors of California. 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) 02:25, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Governors of California. 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) 21:41, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite[edit]

I'm going rewrite this to remove extraneous info, match other formatting, make it more mobile and even desktop friendly, etc. I will do this in pieces so to keep it manageable. I'm being bold, and I'm not an asshole, at least I don't think I am - but I can understand that this looks like me owning the article. and, I mean, I'm not saying it's not. But, IMO, this is a lot of needless info that artificially inflates the article, and we're going to need multiple people to say that it's not.

So, my steps:

  1. Shrink the images to 75px. 150px means that only 5 can show up on my healthy-sized screen at a time. It also makes it poor for mobile.
    • Done
  2. Remove life ranges. Adds nothing to an understanding of the article, if someone cares they can click through. It's not like this is the only place these people are named.
    • Done
  3. Remove previous office. Now this one, people might fight on, so I'm obviously open to that, but ... again, it doesn't add much. Nearly all are lt governors, mayors, or congressmen. Nothing differentiates any of them. And it has no bearing on future performance, nor does it inform people why they were elected - was Newsom elected governor because of his success as lieutenant governor, or because of his success as mayor? Was Schwarzenegger really elected because he was on some presidential council?
    • Done
  4. Remove living governors list. This is a personal peeve of mine, but since it's a separate table and not part of the main table, it's a lot easier to be discussed and reverted. But... again, it doesn't add anything. People seem to care what presidents are still alive, but California governors? There is a point where trivia is only relevant to the trivia wonk who added it. And I don't say that to insult - I'm a trivia wonk. But it has to be useful to readers rather than just the one or two editors who want it.
    • Done

And hey, an election is as good a time as any. --Golbez (talk) 21:21, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Constitutional start date[edit]

The 1874 constitution - original, unamended, though this part is the same today - calls for the start of the gubernatorial term on the first Monday after January 1. However, almost none of the elections before 1939 follow this:

  • 1880: Perkins inaugurated January 8, first Monday was January 5.
  • 1883: Stoneman inaugurated January 10, first Monday was January 8.
  • 1887: Bartlett inaugurated January 8, first Monday was January 3.
  • 1891: Markham inaugurated January 8, first Monday was January 5.
  • 1895: Budd inaugurated January 11, first Monday was January 7.
  • 1899: Gage inaugurated January 4, first Monday was January 2.
  • 1903: Pardee inaugurated January 7, first Monday was January 5.
  • 1907: Gillett inaugurated January 9, first Monday was January 7.
  • 1911: Johnson inaugurated January 3, first Monday was January 2.
  • 1923: Richardson inaugurated January 8, first Monday matches --- this is the only inauguration between 1880 and 1939 to follow the rules
  • 1927: Young inaugurated January 4, first Monday was January 3
  • 1931: Rolph inaugurated January 6, first Monday was january 5.

From there on, starting with Olson in 1939, it actually matches. Does anyone have any idea why this was? Were their terms really started on the right date, but the formal inauguration waited? Or were the previous governors really in power til the wrong date? I note that every single one of these is after the constitutional start date. Any ideas? --Golbez (talk) 22:25, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

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 14:29, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up moves[edit]

As this page was moved from List of Governors of California to List of governors of California as per Talk:List of governors of New York#Requested move 11 April 2019. I propose to similarly move:

If not it looks inconsistent, for example on Governor of California#See also. @BD2412: I am pinging you, because you did the actual move. Nuretok (talk) 19:15, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Done. Cheers! BD2412 T 19:42, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mexican and Spanish governors of California[edit]

Californian history does not begin with the American conquest. The governors listed here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_governors_of_California_before_1850) should be featured as well.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_governors_of_California&oldid=1204832950"