Template talk:U.S. lieutenant governors

First in line of succession

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)

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)

The "non-Lieutenant Governors" have been restored. The subtitle has been changed to reflect this restoration. SMP0328. (talk) 22:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Partisan breakdown

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)

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)

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)

Agreed. I'm going to delete it. Awbeal (talk) 22:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Italics?

What do the italicized names represent? There's nothing to tell the reader... --Jfruh (talk) 14:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

It appears to be someone's way of indicating LG's who are something else or something other than LG. And I believe it's both erroneous and inconsistent. E.g., the "LG" of AZ is a non-existent entity; someone has done some OR and designated the SoS as LG because he or she is 1st in line for the governorship if the governor vacates her office. But that doesn't change the fact that AZ has no LG. This needs to be corrected. Unschool 15:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I have made this more accurate, but there are still some questionable entries, methinks. Unschool 15:36, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, having the SoS, etc. on the list is not OR - further the template listed clearly that the person there was the SoS, not a LG. What the template was saying was that "There is no LG, but here's the person in a similar office". --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 18:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Inclusion of the SoS's with the footnotes is not technically OR, no, but your statement that these are "similar" offices is blatant OR. Given that that is the thought behind the inclusion of these non-LGs, this teeters on the edge of OR. Secondly, I see no evidence that consensus was obtained to add these other office holders to this template. Thirdly, this is an LG template, as the title indicates. If you want a template on "First in line of succession", then it might not be a bad idea, but this is just a muddied mess, and for no good reason that I can see. It's hard enough getting down the different definitions of what constitutes an LG as it is, adding this in here is just unnecessary and confusing. Arizona has no LG, yet this template of LGs lists AZ. That is simply not appropriate. And while we're discussing it, I do NOT wish this to be moved to a title that "covers" the omnimess that this template has become. It is appropriate that we have an LG template that includes LGs. Unschool 19:22, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I withdraw my comments about the failure to achieve consensus on prior changes, I clearly was mistaken, as this is the format this template has always had. I simply misremembered it. Accordingly, I apologize for the major changes without discussion. I still submit, however, that we would be better served by a pure-LG template than this OR-laden attempt to define what is and is not "similar". Most states have both an SOS and an LG. It is arrogant of us, and a violation of OR, for us to presume that we can call them similar and lump them together (even though I know, as I'm sure we all do, that they are similar). The fact is, they are different offices, and should be separately templated ^{(did I just invent a verb?)}. Unschool 19:31, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

There is no OR, as you note in the template itself. The rationale for why to group certain things together is not covered by WP:OR, as it is not encyclopedic content itself. See also the note under "proposal". --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 20:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Your statement, "There is no LG, but here's the person in a similar office" is most definitely OR. Under what basis do you term the offices LG and SOS as "similar"? Given that some states have one, some have the other, and most states have both, on what foundation is your statement lain? You call them "similar" because they appear to be so to you. And I actually agree in many cases that this is true. By neither your opinion nor my partial agreement serves to meet the standards of our project, unless of course you have published your assessment somewhere.

Additionally, this template serves to confuse the unitiated. It is quite clear that someone could come away from this template with the impression that "Secretary of State" was just another name for LG. This is not the case, and we should not promote the notion. Unschool 23:21, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposal

I believe that this template, which is titled Current U.S. Lieutenant Governors, should include only Lieutentant Governors. Inclusion of persons holding other offices, such as state Secretaries of State, is not justified, simply because Secretaries of State are not Lieutenant Governors. The fact that some Secretaries of State hold similar (even nearly identical, in some cases) duties as do Lt. Govs, does not justify their inclusion here. Most states have both and LG and an SOS, inclusion of some SOS's here just makes the whole issue confusing, and could understandably cause someone to think that the two offices are simply different names for the same thing, which they are not (Utah, perhaps, excepted). The SOS template does not include LGs, despite the similarity (in some states, certainly not all) of these positions, neither should the LG template.

Additionally, justification of the inclusion of non-LGs based upon their ostensible similarity is an evaluative decision constituting original research, and is therefore not within the competence of Wikipedia.

I would support, if someone cared to do it, the creation of a separate template indicating next-in-line for succession. Within such a template some SOS's could be included without violating OR. But here it is not appropriate, in my opinion. Unschool 06:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the title is "Current Lieutenant Governors (or officials first in line of succession) of U.S. states and territories". The primary purpose of it is to identify current LGs, but it can be quite useful to have this double as the "officials first in line of succession" template rather than create another - mostly redundant - template for that purpose, which would serve only to clutter article pages.

As for the "new title" argument above, the current title is in no wise new and dates back to the creation of the template. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 20:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I am not referring to the title on the banner at the top of the template, I am referring to the title of the template itself, it is found at Template:Current U.S. Lieutenant Governors, Template:Current U.S. Lieutenant Governors and other persons first in line of succession. And I didn't say it was new, except in the comments in the above section which I redacted more than 48 hours ago. Unschool 23:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Didn't notice you'd struck it, sorry. As for the difference, I was referring to the title (in the template) not the name of the template, because we often use "short names" for templates - e.g. Template:- which is the short form of Template:sectionbreak, which redirects to it. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 23:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I think we've cleared the air of the misunderstandings now, and I appreciate that. What I would really like is some input on this from others; I really feel that the current version of the template is unwise. The problem is, how to get input? This is not exactly the kind of talk page that draws a lot of attention. WP:CANVASS seems to limit us greatly; even if we were to contact only those who have previously edited here, it would be problematic, because they would likely be predisposed to the status quo. I would really like to get some fresh, unbiased opinion in here. Any suggestions? Unschool 03:50, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I've listed it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. states. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 14:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

That's better than any ideas I had. Thanks. Getting three responses might take a couple of months for something like this; we'll just have to wait and see. Unschool 17:59, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The list should include the official of every state and territory who fulfills the role of filling in for the governor, including the handful whose title does not describe their role as lieutenant governors. Whoever only wants those whose title is Lt Gov can visually exclude the few who don't have the title. From a user standpoint, it is logical that people will look up "Lt Gov", not "Persons Next in Line of Succession". Pr4ever (talk) 02:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

NY - Ravitch

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)

Footnote on LtGovs not same party as Gov

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)

National Lieutenant Governors Association

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)