The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was keep. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:59, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It seems odd to me to have a template for 2 Massachusetts counties. Doesn't this information go in the {{Infobox settlement}} under the government/leadership? Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:12, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @Zackmann08:, {{Infobox settlement}} government listings are usually for officeholders of that municipality. If you review any town or city, you won't find county, state, and federal officials in their main infoboxes, Washington D.C. being the exception. I didn't make the original template used in Worcester County, but copied it for my work in Hampden. In theory it should exist for all 14 MA counties. This is a convenient way to list public officials representing but not tied directly to a settlement, it would be a loss without an equivalent template for government sections of town/city articles. --Simtropolitan(talk) 20:47, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Simtropolitan: thanks for the explination. My thing is that there MUST be a more generic template that does this. How many counties are there in the US, not to mention cities... No reason to have a custom template for each one. At the very least this should be a generic {{Area politicians}} or something. It sounds like {{Infobox settlement}} is not where this information goes, but I have to believe there is someway that this information is displayed on other pages... --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:50, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Zackmann08: That may well be, and as I'm sure you know area governments vary considerably from one state to the next, but that is a much larger discussion than this deletion thread then. Until there is a suitable replacement with consensus, I would respectfully ask that this template not be deleted.--Simtropolitan(talk) 20:59, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Simtropolitan: part of this discussion is to locate whether such a template exists. But the more research I do the more I think this template should just be deleted. Every city and county page I have looked at has this information displayed in the body of the article. The two transclusions of this template have multiple issues. For one they violate WP:OVERLINK by linking to the parties multiple times. Additionally, most of these positions are not worth including. State and federal representatives are included in the body of the article, but county level heads are not notable and none of them have articles so I'm not seeing any added value here. --Zackmann (Talk to me/<sub What I been doing) 21:06, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Zackmann08: Town level administrators are notable enough to have in a settlement infoboxes and bodies of text in many cases, and most will never have their own articles, so I have a difficult time seeing how county-level government is not relevant to include in this way. Again, if the point of Wikipedia infoboxes is to provide relevant information quickly, it makes little sense to offer a list of city mayors or council members who are referenced in the body text, but not have a short-list of officeholders like sheriffs or district attorneys who represent multiple town governments. --Simtropolitan(talk) 21:15, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Simtropolitan: the issue is that you need to draw the line somewhere with Infoboxes. You can't put every single name in the box. As you said, the point is to provide relevant information quickly. If you put ALL the information there then it defeats the purpose. See MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE which states (in part) The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. I think the amount of info you are including is overkill. That being said, I think we could talk until the end of time and not see eye to eye. Let's see what others have to say on the mater and circle-back? --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:21, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Zackmann08: >If you put ALL the information there then it defeats the purpose. Which is why it exists in its own infobox rather than trying to put that in a settlement infobox. Deleting the specific template is fine but again, arguing this information shouldn't exist in an identical template infobox, by a more generic name, is where I will continue to make my case.--Simtropolitan(talk) 21:31, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think there's a difference between having this content in an infobox in the lede section, where I would not think it should be included, versus having it in a sidebar in a comprehensive politics and government section of the article, where I think it's quite appropriate. It doesn't seem to me that the discussion above distinguishes that. --Bsherr (talk) 21:33, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:01, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:25, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agree with above, there must be some sort of standardised template for this. At any rate, what is contained within the template I think is notable and deserves inclusion. Just because it's not standardised is not a reason for deletion. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:12, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
keep, seems better than any presented alternative. Frietjes (talk) 17:06, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
