Talk:First ladies and gentlemen of Puerto Rico

List included in this article or separate article?

See this reversion to my reversion. Seems in the past the list of past First Ladies has been included in this article, now it is split off into the article List of former and current First Lady of Puerto Rico. It had also been done with List of secretaries of State of Puerto Rico. Either way is fine with me, just want to get consensus about the proper format. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:13, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

• Merge back to the original article - In my humble opinion, I prefer the list of First Ladies within the article. Tony the Marine (talk) 01:22, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

After looking at "List of former and current First Lady of Puerto Rico", I asked myself "What is this"? The "list" is supposed to have an informative article to go along with it. It shouldn't be just a boring "table". Where is the introduction of the list? Where is some information which would make the list interesting? Here is an example of what a list should look like: List of Puerto Ricans missing in action in the Korean War. As I stated a simple "table" belongs in an article such as the "First Lady of Puerto Rico" and not as a sole entity. Also the same thing goes for the "List of secretaries of State of Puerto Rico", it should be merged once more to the article Secretary of State of Puerto Rico. Tony the Marine (talk) 02:53, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Tony, I obviously don't agree with your opinion, but I have added the {{prose}} template to the article. Perhaps we should be working on improving it rather than merging it? I'm kinda busy improving and creating other articles at the moment. Give me a hand with this one. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 03:57, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

• Merge back to the original article

I created the articles List of rivers of Ponce and List of Barrios of Ponce, and in each case an introduction was provided. It is standard procedure in the Puerto Rico Project for every Puerto Rico-related list article to have, at a minimum, a solid lead section. But there is more,,,, the article should be merge back to the original article for reasons I explain as follows.

I noticed that User Ahnoneemoos is the editor who split the article in question here, and this is the same editor who moved page Cuerpo de Bomberos de Puerto Rico to Puerto Rico Fire Corps over redirect, and then moved page Puerto Rico Fire Corps to Puerto Rico Firefighters Corps on November 15 at 22:26 and 22:26, respectively. This was a controversial moved and I requested an administrator HERE to revert the move to its original title. My petition for the revert request (for technical reasosn I couldn't complete the reverts myself) was based on the WP:LEAD guideline. The request was honored on November 16 at 6:33 HERE without questions. The move of Cuerpo de Bomberos de Puerto Rico had at least three problems: no notice was posted at the Talk page of the impending move, noi reason for the move was given in the edit summary, and the move failed WP:LEAD.

Ahnoneemoos' move of Cuerpo de Bomberos de Puerto Rico occured on 15 November 2012, and since then Ahnoneemoos performed a series of moves to Puerto Rico-related articles without posting notes of the Talk pages. Particularly troublesome was that none of his moved were provided with a reason, per SOP. While editors have the freedom to WP:BE BOLD, oftentimes the best practice is to first ask yourself how a move might or could be controversial.

Ahnoneemoos' moves to Puerto Rico-related articles since his move of Cuerpo de Bomberos de Puerto Rico are as follows:

• moved page List of former and current Speakers of the House of Representatives of Puerto Rico to List of Speakers of the House of Representatives of Puerto Rico
• moved page Puerto Rico Legislative Commission to Legislative commission (Puerto Rico)
• moved page Angel Rosa to Angel R. Rosa
• moved page Cuerpo de Emergencias Medicas de Puerto Rico to Puerto Rico Medical Emergencies Corps
• moved page Cabinet of Puerto Rico to Council of Secretaries of Puerto Rico
• moved page Executive branch of the Government of Puerto Rico to Executive branch of the government of Puerto Rico
• moved page Executive Departments of the Government of Puerto Rico to Executive departments of the government of Puerto Rico
• moved page Inspector General of Puerto Rico to Office of the Inspector General of the Government of Puerto Rico
• moved page Ingrid Vila to moved page Ingrid Vila to Ingrid Vila Biaggi
• moved page Office of Legislative Services of Puerto Rico to Puerto Rico Office of Legislative Services
• moved page Comptroller of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico to Comptroller of Puerto Rico
• moved page Public corporations of the Government of Puerto Rico to Public corporations of the government of Puerto Rico
• moved page Office of Management and Budget of Puerto Rico to Puerto Rico Office of Management and Budget
• moved page Secretary of Government of Puerto Rico to Secretary of Government of Puerto Rico (minister)
• moved page Puerto Rico Treasury Department to Puerto Rico Department of Treasury
• moved page List of former and current First Lady of Puerto Rico to List of First Ladies of Puerto Rico
• moved page Template:Houses of Representatives of Puerto Rico to Template:House of Representatives of Puerto Rico by session
• moved page Puerto Rico Urgent Interest Fund Corporation to COFINA
• moved page Template:Cabinets of Puerto Rico to Template:Cabinet of Puerto Rico by session
• moved page Template:Senates of Puerto Rico to Template:Senate of Puerto Rico by session
• moved page Template:1917 PR Senate to Template:1st Senate of Puerto Rico
• moved page List of secretaries of State of Puerto Rico to List of Secretaries of State of Puerto Rico

While some of these would clearly be noncontroversial moves -- for some titles were not spelled properly, etc. (example: Template:16h Cabinet of Puerto Rico) -- a sizable number of the other moves clearly expose themselves to controversy, as in the case of Cuerpo de Bomberos de Puerto Rico. The complete list above is handy in that it can be easily reviewed by PR WikiProject editors for similar potential controversies. A good list of recent changes by Ahnoneemoos is found HERE and HERE.

As for WP:CONSENSUS on the First Lady of Puerto Rico article/list, it should be merged back to the original article.

My name is Mercy11 (talk) 01:00, 19 November 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.

Wow, please read Wikipedia:assume good faith, Wikipedia:ignore all rules, Wikipedia:Witchhunt, and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Wikipedia is not a democracy nor a bureaucracy. Wikipedia is a crowdsourced platform and, as such, you should expect stuff like this to happen. Relax, back off, cool down, and don't take this personally. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 01:26, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh, no, no. I am not taking this personally at all, and the assumption of good faith has been here from the start, as well as the assumption that we will all abide by the policies and guidelines, of which the simple act of filling in summary edits -- which tells other editors know *why* something is being done -- ranks very high in my list. Sometimes it helps to go back to basics every once in a while and use a bit of WP:COMMON SENSE which comes before anything in that army of wikilinks you listed above. Kindly refrain from telling me what you think I should or should not expect: my actions at Wikipedia are guided by established community policy and not by excuses of crowdsourced platforms. You appear quite knowlegable about the democracy and bureaucracy policies, I remind you about the one on WP:CONSENSUS. If you didn't like my earlier statements, take it HERE instead, not this Talk page, as per policy. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 03:16, 19 November 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.

You really need to understand the difference between a policy and a rule. You also need to understand that per WP:SENSE itself, common sense is a subjective matter. You really need to chill. Don't you think it would be better if we create, build, and improve articles rather than meddle on such trivial matters as this one? There are a ton of articles that need to be created, why don't you focus your energy and effort on that rather than on this? —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 03:57, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Here is an idea: have you considered trying to take some of your own medicine: that should help both of us. Get it? If not, here's another lead: Common sense should had told you that if various editors have found several of your recent moves controversial, then -at a minimum- you should had temporarily halted them, but you continue to ram new ones, without discussion, despite multiple objections from several editors on your previous and similar moves.

My name is Mercy11 (talk) 20:28, 19 November 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.

• Keep them separated. I do not agree with your suggestion but I have added the proper cleanup templates to the section in the original article and to this article to indicate that they both must be improved. See List of Secretaries of State of the United States which is presented exactly just as a list without any lead section and List of First Ladies of the United States. I strongly believe that my suggestions are a viable solution to this dispute and that they help reach consensus in good faith. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 16:26, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I have added a shorter, cleaner, and minimal list to the main article while keeping the detailed list on this one. That way we have the names on the main article but the details and pictures on this one; making it easier to read First Lady of Puerto Rico while saving all intricate details on List of First Ladies of Puerto Rico. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 06:27, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I still believe that the tables belong in the articles for which they were created. Both "List" articles can still remain and follow the example of List of Puerto Rican military personnel. As a matter of fact the tables can even remain in the "List" articles. A consensus of both issues should be set up and we should let the community decide which would be the best course to follow. I looked at both "Secretary of State of Puerto Rico" and the "First Ladies of Puerto Rico" articles and the sections which list the names of the former secretaries and ladies. At least in the article of the First ladies of Puerto Rico, the section has some informative substance, however the same cannot be said of the Secretary of State article. Tony the Marine (talk) 18:31, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I do not agree with your opinion. I believe it would be best to show a clean and concise list in the main article showing only the years served, name, and the acronym of the Puerto Rican political party. Then the List article goes into detail with colors, pictures, and whatever else you want to add. As an example, compare Southern Governors' Association to National Governors Association. National Governors Association looks cleaner and easier to read. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 18:44, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Number of first ladies

Shouldn't there still be 11 first ladies?.. the 2nd was Conchita Dapena, wouldn't the next marriage be filling still the shoes of the 2nd first lady and not be a 3rd?.. yes its a different person but she was filling the shoes of the 2nd first lady still..wouldn't they be "both 2nd".. and go in line with the 2nd "governor" position. look at the 10th with Silas daughters both as 10th..which makes sense...Puertorico1 (talk)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:First Ladies and Partners of California which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 14:36, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:First Ladies and Gentlemen of Kansas which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 20:03, 13 December 2022 (UTC)