Template talk:Los Angeles city attorneys

Full names

An editor has been WP:bold in removing the given names of these attorneys but neglected to provide a reason therefor. I have reverted because it is pretty obvious that full names are important to comprehend who these people are or were. GeorgeLouis (talk) 03:13, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean I neglected to provide a reason? We discussed this at length at Talk:Los Angeles City Attorney. My reason was that the format of this template is identical to the format of Template:Attorneys General of California and numerous other officeholder templates. @GeorgeLouis:, I don't see why you continue to fight me on this. We discussed this at length and nobody agreed with you. Now you are just being disruptive. pbp 14:38, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Furthermore, there is clearly not a consensus to order the table of this or any other officeholder alphabetically. This was explained to you at Talk:Los Angeles City Attorney, yet you returned the table to an alphabetical order only you support. As such, I have reverted you. pbp 14:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

As I mentioned at Talk:Los Angeles City Attorney#Request for WP:Third opinion, the template should contain the dates they served. If the addition of the first name doesn't create too much clutter, then the first name may be added. The main purpose of a navbox is to provide easy navigation between related articles. I think most people who would use this navbox would move between articles of chronologically close attorneys, and not use the navbox in a way that alphabetically is closer. Additionally, while there is no specific policy (that I'm aware of), most such navboxes list people in chronological order and per MOS:LIST#Organization (a navbox like this can be considered a list): "if (list) items have specific dates a chronological format is sometimes preferable". Per WP:NAVBOX: "Alphabetical ordering does not provide any additional value to a category containing the same article links." (there's already [[:Category:Los Angeles City Attorneys]])

Examples of high-profile templates (since there's no equivalent to article class for templates, I think high-profile subjects are appropriate to use for comparison) in chronological order:

Examples in chronological order using just surname (probably because full name would be too much clutter):

So the bottom line is: template should be in chronological order, then an indication of the term served (either # or dates, despite a couple examples using # order, I think dates would be more useful to readers), then use the first name (if it doesn't make the template too cluttered).

Also, @GeorgeLouis: Repeatedly trying to edit with disregard to other editors' input is disruptive editing (examples 1 & 5). Also the repeated claim that pbp89's edits are WP:Bold is not necessary. Please attempt to create a consensus on the talk page before reverting (the issue was already discussed at Talk:Los Angeles City Attorney#Request for WP:Third opinion). Also, please add the suggested dates (or # order) before trying to argue about whether or not the addition of the first name would be too much "clutter" since that's a subjective term that can only really be determined visually after the changes are made. AHeneen (talk) 17:57, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to the editor who took the time to look up all these templates. Unfortunately, yours truly has a real life to deal with so it would be appreciated if no further changes to the original template were made subject to WP:Consensus on any changes. That being said, it does like there is no set rule for this sort of template, although I haven't had time to look through them all. I will get to them perhaps tonight. Yours in Wikidom, GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:50, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

{{ec}I don't think User:GeorgeLouis heard you, @AHeneen:. As you may have noticed, I added the dates earlier, and you cleaned them up. He then went and undid BOTH of our edits. If he reverts either of us one more time, I am reporting him to 3RR. pbp 21:52, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

While I am offline, one of you might think about a good place to carry on this discussion following a WP:Request for Comment. I don't think this particular place is an apt location for a WP:consensus that will affect more than just this one article. Thanks in advance. 'Bye now. GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:01, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh, good grief. We have consensus now! We got two editors here and two more on the article saying that chrono is the way to go. Only one person (you) wants alphabetical. The place to go is not RfC, it is to ANI or AN/3RR for your project disruption. pbp 22:18, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I restored the version with full names because not having them is just plain silly. This is the first step in WP:BRD. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 05:41, 13 May 2020 (UTC)