Template talk:U.S. lieutenant governors

message: OK this needs work: There are states with NO Lieutenants Governors which have Senate Presidents listed here. This template should be for one (LGs) or the other (1st in lines), not a mixture-with-preference. 68.39.174.238 02:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the non-Lieutenant Governors to make the contents of this template reflect its name. Mike Dillon 21:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The "non-Lieutenant Governors" have been restored. The subtitle has been changed to reflect this restoration. SMP0328. (talk) 22:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks to me like this "restoration" was done without seeking consensus.  I guess maybe my memory is not so bad; I hadn't remembered seeing this "1st in line" stuff in the title before.  I guess that's because it wasn't there. Unschool 23:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Delete. Not useful to anybody except maybe us editors. Why would anybody be interested? These people do not meet each other and have no inter-relation with each other. Though most share the title they often have different duties. I fail to see the point. Sorry. Student7 (talk) 21:59, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What exactly are you saying is not useful?  This entire template?  Such templates are pretty standard.  The question we have been wondering about is whether or not this template, entitled Current US Lieutenant Governors, should just have governors on it, or should it include other persons who are first in line of succession? Look at the discussion below, and join in. Unschool 22:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

text: Sorry.What "standard"? Somebody with a heck of a lot of energy (give him credit) has produced these in great excess. The problem is that templates have tended (like categories) to proliferate. What good is this template? I don't really care that there are a million like it. My question is what good is this template (or the other million for that matter)? These people do not relate to each other. They share a title. Do we have a template "Wikipedia editor?" Why not, we all share that title, right? It's pointless, folks. We have more in common than these guys (okay, women too). Because I have the bio or pointer to an article on "Lieutenant Governor of North Dakota" why would I want to reference the article "Joe Smchaltz" who is Lt. Governor of Iowa? Makes no sense. Not even a social studies student would need this. Student7 (talk) 22:29, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmmmm.  I'm not saying you're wrong; I have often moaned about the proliferation of some of the Wikicreations with which most have grown complacent, especially cleanup tags and expansion tags and all that which pollute the top of articles.  I can't say why I think that these tags are acceptable to me, except that a) they sit at the bottom of the articles, where they are non-disruptive, and b) (you probably won't believe this) I actually have used them sometimes.  Usually it's not the link to the actual individual listed, but to the office.  For example, I have lived for significant periods of time in three states, and feel a kinship to each.  If I was reading an article about the Secretary of State of one state, it would not be unusual for me to visit the articles for the SoS's of other states, most likely those of states where I have lived.  Why?  To see the differences in their offices, how they are organized, what powers they have, how they are elected, etc.  This is how I have always used encyclopedias, since I was a child reading the 1959 edition of World Book.  I vividly remember reading about the leader of one country in WWII (say, Hitler), and seeing another leader mentioned, would go grab the T-volume to read about Tojo.  The beauty of Wikipedia is that these connections can be made instantaneously with links, and the links that you find pointless are quite possibly the links that another person finds valuable.  If these tables were displayed prominently in the middle of or at the top of the articles, I would be in line to object as well, but I just think that, placed as they are at the bottom, they hurt no one and very possibly can help others. Unschool 03:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree with Unschool that these are valuable - and that your suggestion is somewhat of a red herring here.  The question, and please reply in the section below, is whether this template should do double-duty as a list of Lt.Govs and First-in-lines or whether we should have two templates. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 06:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

text: I agree that the template to the office can be useful. Separately, a template to the individuals might be allowable if much less useful (bios only). Having both together seems to promote individuals a bit much. Remember these names will have to be maintained. We won't always have Mr. Energetic around to do it for us!  :) Student7 (talk) 19:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you seriously suggesting that we take the individuals off because the template has to be maintained?!  The individuals add a good deal to navigation and concerns about future maintenance isn't a valid reason for, well, anything as it could apply to any BLP, currently existing company or product, etc.  (Not to mention that there are several people who collectively maintain these templates).  --Philosopher Let us reason together. 20:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'm with Philo on this matter; maintaining articles to keep them updated is one of the things that distinguishes Wikipedia from World Book.  If I had my druthers, I'd not have articles updated to reflect every game played by the Chicago Cubs, as would many editors here, but this?  Updating something because the office holder changes, what, every four years?  I think we can handle that. Unschool 06:14, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: First in line of succession

message: Just looking at the list, I don't understand how the numbers "Republican 22 · Democratic 24 · Covenant 1  · PPD 1" were arrived at.  And I contributed to this problem myself!  But it looks like this partisan breakdown originally encompassed only those people with the title Lieutenant Governor, not including secretaries of state or presidents of the senate.  This is getting confusing.  Maybe the partisan breakdown line should be removed?  Awbeal (talk) 13:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've updated those totals so they include territories (including D.C.) and those first in line of succession who aren't Lieutenant Governors. Also, I added the first in line of succession to New York (NY) and New Jersey (NJ). SMP0328. (talk) 18:50, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think we need a partisan breakdown on the table - one in the relevant article would be enough.  Also, it's not like the legislature where it really matters which party has a majority - here, it's just a statistic.  --Philosopher Let us reason together. 19:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I'm going to delete it. Awbeal (talk) 22:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Partisan breakdown

message: I've changed the entry for NY to reflect Richard Ravitch, not because I believe the legal wrangling is over or that there won't be a change, but because the most recent ruling specifically states that Ravitch would take over for Paterson if necessary. Still, I left the note about it being disputed, with a link to 2009 New York State Senate leadership crisis#Appointment of a Lieutenant Governor.  Frank    talk  17:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  NY - Ravitch 

message: I don't think this edit is particularly helpful or useful, especially since there are ten cases that would have to be so marked, most of them instances in which some other officeholder is executing Lt Governor duties.  My removal of the edit was reverted without comment.  Powers T 14:12, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Footnote on LtGovs not same party as Gov 

message: Throughout several discussions about this template, statements have been made that lieutenant governors have nothing in common but their title and that they never meet.  Actually, both statements are erroneous.
After hearing a local radio interview from the Puerto Rico official that exercises the role, but not the official title, of lieutenant governor, Secretary of State McClintock, I've come to understand that, not only do they meet several times a year, but they've had an organization for decades to facilitate communication among them, the National Lieutenant Governors Association or NLGA.
The organization's members not only includes state lieutenant governors but also lt. govs. from the US territories as well as the three secretaries of state---OR, PR and WY---who serve the role of lt. govs., that is first-in-line of gubernatorial succession. The organization has at its members not only those who accede to the powers of the governorship when the Governor is out of state but also those who only accede to those powers when the Governor is incapacitated, removed from office or dies.  That should lay to rest about half of the controversies debated in this discussion page! Pr4ever (talk) 02:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  National Lieutenant Governors Association