Jump to content

Talk:List of governors of New York

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured listList of governors of New York is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 8, 2008Featured list candidatePromoted

Untitled

[edit]

You forgot Levi. P. Morton, New York Governor [1895 to 1897] served as Vice-president of United States under Benjamin Harrison from 1889 to 1893. Jeffrey H. lynford67.87.43.228 09:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Governor John A. Dix died in 1879. Why is he governor again between 1911 and 1912? --Lst27 23:52, 8 May 2004 (UTC) Because they were 2 different men...one's middle name was Adams & the other was Alden.[reply]

Accuracy of Dates for Lt. Governors

[edit]

I've been running into date issues as I've built stub pages and/or added succession boxes for the Lt. Governors. In a few cases where these men have held offices other than Lt. Gov. dates overlap. For example, DeWitt Clinton is listed as serving as Mayor of New York City at the same time he was serving as Lt. Gov. (1811 - 1813). Although I think this one is accurate, more puzzling is Edward Livingston who is listed as serving as both Lt. Gov. and U.S. Secretary of State at the same time (1831-1833). To be certain this information is correct, all dates on this table need to be confirmed. It may be worth it to launch a project to verify the resumes of all people listed here to ensure date accuracy. If anyone is interested in this, leave a commenton my talk page. --CPAScott 13:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am showing that Edward J Livingston was US Secretary of State 1831-1833 and Edward P Livingston, great grandson of Robert Livingston was Lieutenant Governor 1831-1832.

The Edward Livingston who was Secretary of State of the United States was from Louisiana. He was a Representative and then a Senator from Louisiana before becoming Secretary of State and is clearly a different person from the Edward Livingston who was Lieutenant Governor of New York.
As indicated above, the overlap in DeWitt Clinton's service as Mayor of New York City and Lieutenant Governor of New York State appears to be accurate and is confirmed by a source cited in the DeWitt Clinton article.
I have spot-checked a few of the other dates in the tables and they appear to be correct as well. Accordingly, I am removing the "accuracy disputed" tag from the article. If anyone disagrees please let me know. Newyorkbrad 00:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure that the Edward Livingston who was Secretary of State had a middle name initial? Even if the Secretary of State had previously lived in Louisiana for a very long time, he had actually moved back from Louisiana to his native state of New York in 1831. He lived his last years in Dutchess County. Even if Lieutenant Governor Edward P. Livingston is a different person, both of them were living in the same state at the same time. Even a third notable Edward Livingston was living in New York at that time and he would serve as Speaker of the state assembly in 1837. 128.214.199.114 (talk) 10:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Governor Spitzer

[edit]

Unless something unbeliveable happens in the next 48 hours, Spitzer is going to be elected governor (I mean, 70% in the latest polls?) So since somebody else started putting him in the bottom box, I decided to finish it and save you guys the trouble.

He's not yet, though, and you shouldn't predict...wikipedia isn't about predicting, it's about stating facts! Besides, people could be influenced by this false information when voting.

Spitzer's been elected, yet he shouldn't be added to this list, until he takes office. GoodDay 23:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the list to reflect that Spitzer is not the Governor, he is the Governor-elect. Interested people should watch New York and other state articles, as there are many users who are mistakenly changing governors immediately. Rhobite 00:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


---along the lines of "prediction", i am watching CNN live right now as of 3/12/08 10:46EST -- and Spitzer is STILL Governor. He is not having a press conference until 11:30AM EST -- how could anyone actually update this article saying that he was governor until march 10 nd then Patterson took office March12 -- first off, that would me NY had no governor for 2 full days -- plus Spitzer has NOT RESIGNED YET!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.10.0.221 (talk) 14:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dates

[edit]

The Governor of New York and the other top officeholders in the state take the oath of office twice. Once at midnight, and once at noon on the first day of the year, as the old governor's term ends at the end of the previous year. So I've been changing the dates to end with even numbers.

Also, I made an interesting discovery. there was a special election for Lt. Governor in 1943. This, if true is entirely unique. As the job was technically vacant a number of times in recent years.

It is not unique, there have been several special elections for Lt. Gov. (1811, 1847, 1943) see New York gubernatorial elections. The special election is held only if the office falls vacant in its first half of the term, on all other occasions and until the special election, the majority leader of the state senate becomes Acting Lt. Gov. Kraxler (talk) 01:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know the old governor's term ends, and thus the new governor's term begins, at midnight, but do people actually take the oath of office then? - Matthew238 01:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
These dates, don't match Governors of New York bio articles. GoodDay 23:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have the official list of governors from the New York State official "Green Book" here. Could you give a couple of examples of discrepancies so I can check them out and make any needed adjustments? Newyorkbrad 23:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article for example, has terms ending in even numbered years- Wilson in 1974, Carey 1982, Cuomo 1994 & Pataki 2006. In bio articles- Malcolm Wilson (1975), Hugh Carey (1983), Mario Cuomo (1995) & George Pataki (2007), has their terms ending in odd numbered years. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GoodDay (talk • contribs) 23:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
The Green Book (which, oddly enough, is orange this year) give the terms ending in even-numbered years, as does the Governor's official website [here]. The biographical articles should probably be edited to match this table. Newyorkbrad 23:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification. GoodDay 23:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed dates in the Pataki & Cuomo articles. Will continue corrections to other NY Governor bio articles, tomorrow. GoodDay 00:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed all Governors & Lt.Governors of New York bio articles (concerning office tenure), beginning with Governor DeWitt Clinton & Lt.Governor John Taylor, tenures 1817-22. GoodDay 21:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
HEH!, somebody went and messed up those tenure dates. GoodDay 23:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Corrected them, full term Governor's tenures ended on [December 31] after that years' gubernatorial election. GoodDay 15:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Governor of New York and the other top officeholders in the state take the oath of office twice. Once at midnight, and once at noon on the first day of the year,.. This unsigned comment added above is not correct. The Governor-elect takes the oath of office sometimes as early as December 29, in fact on the last workday before the end of the year, and signs the papers in private at the Secretary of State's office. Thus he can take up his official duties at zero hour on January 1 without disturbing anybody. Later on this day, a public ceremony is held during which the now inaugurated Governor signs only an informal copy of the oath for press coverage. Kraxler (talk) 15:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Governor Spitzer impending resignation

[edit]

Please. Let's wait until March 17, 2008 before we list Spitzer as 'out of office' & Paterson as Governor. A lot could happen, between now & then. GoodDay (talk) 18:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paterson was sworn in around 1:13pm EST. -Electricbolt (talk) 17:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No "Acting Lieutenant Governors"

[edit]

There is no such thing as an "Acting Lieutenant Governor" under the current State Constitution (I don't know about earlier State Constitutions). If there's no Lieutenant Governor, the "temporary president of the senate" performs the duties, but does not hold the office, of Lieutenant Governor. Nobody in New York is referring to Joseph Bruno as "Acting Lieutenant Governor". Interpreting the "temporary president of the senate" to mean "Acting Lieutenant Governor" is original research. I'm not being picky. When it comes to gubernatorial succession, the "temporary president of the senate" is very different from the Lieutenant Governor. Also, it's disputed whether the "temporary president of the senate" can cast a tiebreaking vote in the State Senate, even though a Lieutenant Governor expressly has this authority. I have corrected the article to eliminate any reference to an "Acting Lieutenant Governor" past 1938. --SMP0328. (talk) 03:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citation styles mixed up?

[edit]

This is an otherwise nice article, but why are there two different citation styles, each with their own citation list in different locations? I don't see a compelling reason to use a separate style from the standard {{reflist}}. --Cmprince (talk) 19:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because the devs have not yet supplied us suitably with multiple classes of references. Footnotes and citations are different things, and this is the only method available to do that. (At present, you can use multiple classes of references, but they cannot be nested; i.e. a ref cannot call another ref, which would be required to cite the footnotes.) If we combined them, then how do we properly cite a footnote, apart from just cluttering them all together? --Golbez (talk) 20:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No colonial governors?

[edit]

Was there a governor's office in colonial New York? Who held it, if so? How were they appointed? The article for Governor Clinton says he was the first "elected" governor, not the first governor. MrZaiustalk 03:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Acting Governor is not the same as Governor

[edit]

The state constitution of 1777 for New York is VERY clear that when there is a vacancy of Governor the Lt. Governor becomes ACTING governor and is NOT the governor. We should reflect that in the list. Tayler was never GOVERNOR, he was acting governor. They got it right on the wikipedia article on his life, it should be corrected here. On that article they also have a quote and explanation showing why he was not governor. Camelbinky (talk) 00:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The intro mentions it; the table mentions it. What more is needed? --Golbez (talk) 01:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the intro says that the list includes acting governors who filled an entire term. Tayler and probably at least one other acting governor on the list in this article did not fill an entire term, they served a tiny bit of one term, just until a special election was held, not even a regularly scheduled election. The name of the article is "List of Governors of New York" it is not "List of Governors and Acting-Governors of New York". The state constitution is quite clear these people WERE NOT governors and "acting-governor" was not a TITLE, Tayler and others who filled this role simply did the job of the governor during a vacancy without ever recieving a title. The article on Tayler makes it clear he was never governor, he happened to do the governor's job during a vacancy. That is all. Acting governor was not a title he or others had, so it cant even be claimed that acting governor is a title that means the same thing, because he didnt have that title. There was a VACANCY, and that is what should be put in the table- Vacancy, duties performed by- . Instead of Tayler or someone else's name who happened to be performing duties. I can run my office while the boss is on vacation, sick, or dead, that doesnt mean that I was the boss of the company if my company picks a new official CEO a couple months later.Camelbinky (talk) 22:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The governor lists all list acting governors in the list, with a footnote saying so, and with a blank number if they are not officially numbered. --Golbez (talk) 03:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

title of article "List of Governors of New York" is misleading

[edit]

can it be changed to reality? something like "New York State Governor" of "Governor of the State of New York"?--98.116.115.220 (talk) 19:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused. It's a list. Of the governors of New York. How is that misleading? It has no information except a list of governors, and information on the ways one becomes governor, and how long they serve for. An article on the office is different than the article on the list. --Golbez (talk) 01:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that the anon is confused between New York, the state, and New York, the city. In common speech, which one is meant is often specified. However, being that New York City doesn't have a governor (other than the state's) but a mayor, and the official title of the office is Governor of New York, the current title is exactly correct. oknazevad (talk) 00:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Numbering the governors

[edit]

Why are the governors numbered differently to the way we number presidents of the United States? For example, George Clinton is counted only as 1st governor, when he should be listed as 1st and 3rd. It looks especially strange when the article has a picture of Grover Cleveland, and the caption describes him as the 22nd and 24th president, but the list only counts governors who served multiple non-consecutive terms only once. If there is a reason for this, the article should explain it. If there is not, then we should change the numbering. Richard75 (talk) 15:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ask the state. The state website clearly labels him as the 55th governor; the only way to arrive at that number is through this system. --Golbez (talk) 18:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that this is not rare; many states don't count repeat non-consecutive terms. In this regard, it may well be the presidency that uses the unorthodox listing, rather than New York.

Sheldon Silver

[edit]

Sheldon Silver was never Acting Lt. Gov. During the leadership crisis, he was for a short time recognized as the "next-in-line-of-succession" to the governorship while a lower court judge barred temporarily both Malcolm Smith and Pedro Espada. Being next-in-line does not make the Speaker Acting Lt. Gov. He remains the Speaker of the State Assembly! The Speaker would not preside over the State Senate or cast tie-breaking votes therein. The Speaker would become Acting Governor in case of a vacancy, but would continue to preside over the Assembly. I hope this clarifies the issue. Please do not add Silver to this list anymore. Kraxler (talk) 19:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nathaniel Pitcher and John Young

[edit]

Ok, these two men are the only N.Y. governors with no portrait (see here). -AMK152(t • c) 05:22, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Appropriateness of introductory paragraph and infobox

[edit]

I'm concerned about the distinction in content being made between this article and the Governor of New York article, as it applies to the lead paragraph and infobox. It does appear that much of the body of this article (the prose) is appropriate to this page, however the lead paragraph duplicates the aforementioned other article, and appears irrelevent to (or redundant on) this page, which is intended to speak about the lineage of individuals who have held the governor's post. The infobox also seems more appropriate on the Governor of New York article (and I have therefore added it there), as it is the page that illuminates the basic role and duties of the governor.

These two items combined, appearing on this page, might cause a reader to initially find it difficult to distinguish this article from the Governor of New York article. A good example of two articles that appropriately distinguish themselves from each other would be Governor of Massachusetts and List of Governors of Massachusetts. Perhaps starting the lead paragraph with "This is a list of Governors of New York" and going from there would help better articulate the distinct encyclopedic intentions of each article. Please let me know what you all think. Thanks! Sinisterminister (talk) 08:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS, I think this also might clarify the question asked previously by 98.116.115.220 (talk) in "title of article "List of Governors of New York" is misleading". Sinisterminister (talk) 08:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
FL style has long abandoned "this is a list of". Lists are not misfits, they are intended to stand on their own merits just as articles do, and no article starts with "this is an article about". I've removed the infobox and linked to the parent article in the header. The lead paragraph is necessary to establish context; you cannot list what something is without giving the reader at least a bare impression of what it is (though perhaps it goes into too much detail [which is to say, any detail] about the governor's powers.) And seeing how I wrote it, I would posit that the other article is duplicating this one, not the other way around. :) However, as I see it at present, the other article doesn't stand on its own. It looks like a good 80% of its content is ripped from here. The two might benefit from a merger, a la Governor of Colorado. --Golbez (talk) 08:48, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback, and I'm glad you agree with me. I'm with you 100% about the content of the second and third lead paragraphs, and was actually concerned about the first paragraph, which exactly repeated the Governor of New York lead. From which article it was initally "ripped" was not my initial concern, so I apologize if I made it sound like I was calling your work a "misfit". In any case, I am now glad to read that you are partially the reason for this gold star I see in the top right corner! Anyway, I wasn't sure how to properly edit the lead, which is why I asked. And merger or not, lets see if we can first distinguish the parent from its list, as I agree the list should certainly stand on its own, for all its great work :) I would be glad to help. Sinisterminister (talk) 09:05, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As of

[edit]

I quote: The "as of" technique is a method to deal with information that will date quickly. (my highlighting) The info "There are 5 former governors alive" is absolutely correct now, and it might not change for years. It had been updated in January, and then in April, I can't see anything quick here. On the other side, it does not say "As of April 2011, the incumbent is...", and this will change too some day, maybe before the death of one of the five. There is some inconsistency here, or not?

But I really don't care. I just thought that it looked better the other way. I fully comprehend that you are worried in a bureaucratic way, thinking that all your lists must have the same format, and the others might need to be changed, causing an unnecessary workload etc. Just forget it. Happy Easter! Kraxler (talk) 02:23, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's no strain to change the other lists, that's the least of my concern. I just didn't see where you were indicating that "as of" was in any way deprecated. You have a point, of course, what with saying the incumbent, rather than the incumbent as of. And there are 10x more edits made to change the months than to add a new governor. You're probably right to remove it. --Golbez (talk) 06:11, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have thought about this, and came to the following conclusion: What the abovementioned MoS quote really means is that the "as of" implies that the info is in fact outdated, but that no new data is available to update the text. Let me give you a practical example: The text says: "The budget for the construction of a new stadium for the World Cup was 1 million, but as of November 2010, 1,200,000 had been already spent, and the construction was only half completed." This means that certainly more money was already spent, but no new figures have been published (for more or less obvious reasons). The reader knows that the info is outdated, but the editor can not update until data becomes available. In fact the expenditure is increasing every day, as long as construction continues. Now back to the governors: If any of these 5 died, it will make the front-page of the New York Times, and somebody will update the page within minutes. So there are two things: The info is virtually never outdated, and there is no quick change in it either, since (except for the aged carey) it might take decades for the others to die.
I thought that I remembered reading somewhere to avoid "as of" as a general rule, which is not true. I see now that it is a tool used for a certain type of info, as described above. The question is, whether it is appropriate to be used here or not. I'll leave it to you. By the way, I know how much work it is to compile these lists and start to write it, I'm sorry if a sounded a bit offensive in my previous post, which was not at all my intention. Kraxler (talk) 18:55, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Van Buren's resignation

[edit]

Martin Van Buren resigned on March 12, 1829. That's what the sources, which were published at the time of the event, say. See for example: The Annals of Albany published by Joel Munsell (Albany, 1855; pg. 183); I doubt that a local newspaper could err the date of an event like that. Or also: Edward M. Shepard's bio of Van Buren (1888), I doubt that somebody would publish a bio with a wrong date. Or Jabez D. Hammond's Political History of New York (1846), and the Biographical Directory of the United States Executive Branch. The alleged "source" which says March 5, is a modern copy-edit, which bases the date on the appointment as Secretary of State, or just copied the erroneous date from Wikipedia... Just think about it, back in 1829, Jackson appointed Van Buren as Secretary of State on March 5. How long the news would take to arrive at Albany, without telephone, telegraph or internet? By letter, on hoseback, a few days at least, and then Van Buren still took a few days to wrap up his governor's business to get ready to have it taken over by Throop. It's simple to understand, or isn't it? By the way, Van Buren was nominated on March 5, confirmed by the U.S. Senate on March 6, and took office in Washington on March 28, as the Martin Van Buren Wikipedia article correctly informs. Kraxler (talk) 10:25, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Acting Lieutenant Governors"?

[edit]

Skelos, Smith, and Espada were never Lieutenant Governors. What evidence or sources supported their inclusion? Jd2718 (talk) 14:14, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to Majority Leader of the New York State Senate, "The Temporary President of the State Senate becomes Acting Lieutenant Governor for the remainder of the unexpired term in case of a vacancy in the office of lieutenant governor.". Is that incorrect? --Golbez (talk) 14:28, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The current wording in the State Constitution is "for the duration of such vacancy" instead of "for the remainder of the term". But the constitution is quite clear on the subject. See here: "In case of vacancy in the office of lieutenant-governor alone, or if the lieutenant-governor shall be impeached, absent from the state or otherwise unable to discharge the duties of office, the temporary president of the senate shall perform all the duties of lieutenant-governor during such vacancy or inability." Kraxler (talk) 17:58, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The language is clear. "Perform the duties of" rather than "become" or "temporarily assume the office." I am deleting them. Jd2718 (talk) 14:53, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The language is clear enough, they act as lieutenant governors. That's long standing consensus, and previous versions of the Constitutions had different wordings. To do a new hair-splitting interpretation is not helpful. Kraxler (talk) 15:00, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The hair-splitting is in the OR that let this stand for so long. There's a reason that no reliable source says what this list does. Jd2718 (talk) 01:59, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How about Wicks Is Acting Lieutenant Governor? Or this which says At that time Senator Bruno became acting lieutenant governor. and Senator Dean Skelos...became majority leader, temporary senate president, and acting lieutenant governor. (near the bottom of page 678). Kraxler (talk) 03:39, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on List of Governors of New York. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:55, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Governors of New York. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:10, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on List of Governors of New York. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:11, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 11 April 2019

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved as proposed. There is a clear policy-based consensus favoring the proposed set of moved. bd2412 T 02:44, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

– Wikipedia has a great problem with overcapitalization, going against its own Manual of Style (WP:JOBTITLES), virtually every other style guide (e.g. Chicago Manual), and basic English orthography. The word "governors" is always a common noun and should not be capitalized. While Governor of New York is properly capitalized because it refers to a proper office or a specific holder of the office, List of governors of New York ought to be lower case because it does not refer to a proper office or a specific holder of the office. WP:JOBTITLES explains that whenever the name of a noun denoting an office, title, or position is in plural, it should be lower case, and that is based on the vast majority of other style manuals.

It is worth noting that the word "governors" is already lower case in articles such as Lists of United States governors, List of United States governors, List of current United States governors by age, List of female governors in the United States, List of U.S. state governors born outside the United States, and List of minority governors and lieutenant governors in the United States. Surtsicna (talk) 14:17, 11 April 2019 (UTC)--Relisting. B dash (talk) 04:38, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  1. The AP Stylebook on the capitalization of the word governor: "Capitalize and abbreviate as Gov. or Govs. when used as a formal title before one or more names in regular text. Capitalize and spell out when used as a formal title before one or more names in direct quotations. Lowercase and spell out in all other uses." It goes on to say under titles: "Lowercase and spell out titles when they are not used with an individual's name."
  2. The Chicago Manual of Style: "Much of the usage below is contradicted by the official literature typically generated by political offices, where capitalization of a title in any position is the norm. In formal academic prose, however, civil titles are capitalized only when used as part of the name."
  3. MOS:JOBTITLES: " "Offices, titles, and positions such as president, king, emperor, grand duke, lord mayor, pope, bishop, abbot, chief financial officer, and executive director are common nouns and therefore should be in lower case when used generically. They are capitalized... when a formal title for a specific entity... is not plural." Surtsicna (talk) 00:12, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]


  • Support - This is long overdue and needed for all the reasons you list above. Most important is matching the format of the article titles with what is expressed in the MOS, which will help support the work of those of us who are trying to tone down the overcapitalization throughout Wikipedia. --Ken Gallager (talk) 19:01, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The word "governors" may or may not be a common noun. As a common noun it could conceivably apply to anyone who helps govern a state. In this case "Governor of State" is properly capitalized because it is the title of the office and therefore a proper noun, unlike "List of United States governors" where "governor" is used as a common noun (there is no office of "United States Governor"). For that reason I do support moving List of living former United States Governors only. See also Talk:List of Presidents of the United States/Archive 12. - Station1 (talk) 19:26, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree, "Governor of State" is properly capitalized. "Governors of State" is not, however. We have a very clear guideline in the Manual of Style (which is presumably based on multitudes of manuals of style) saying: "Offices, titles, and positions... are common nouns and therefore should be in lower case when used generically... They are capitalized only in the following cases: ... When a formal title for a specific entity (or conventional translation thereof) is ... not plural..." A plural form of this noun can never be a proper noun. Surtsicna (talk) 19:41, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you're saying a proper noun can never be pluralized, I disagree. Otherwise we'd say "He won an Oscar but she won two oscars". If a guideline says that, it should be corrected, because it's not only wrong but doesn't represent consensus, since we have numerous article titles using plural proper nouns, including lists of presidents, emperors, prime ministers, chancellors, governors-general, non-U.S. governors, etc. Station1 (talk) 20:39, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • I am not saying that. Please check again. The guideline does not say that either; you can check for yourself. What the guideline says is the result of consensus and is derived from commonly accepted orthography. That we have articles with incorrect capitalization (whether in title, in a single sentence, paragraph, or section, or throughout the article) does not make the guideline wrong or controversial. It just means that there are things to correct. I have cited two guidelines, one of which is our own, that say the word "governors" should be lower case. What guideline says otherwise? Surtsicna (talk) 21:37, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nominator and User:Surtsicna. JIP | Talk 19:43, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:JOBTITLES. GoodDay (talk) 21:47, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, seeing how explicit JOBTITLES makes this. I might be mistaken, but I think that what should be called List of presidents of the United States should be moved, as well. Hameltion (talk, contribs) 23:17, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per my comment above. Edit: Except List of living former United States Governors, which should be ...governors (there is no office/title named "Governor of the U.S."). —[AlanM1(talk)]— 00:22, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This seems like the reasonable and policy-based titling. Nohomersryan (talk) 02:42, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. With Presidents it would be different, but governors are a comparatively unimportant position and therefore I see no need to capitalize the word "governor" in normal English discussion and content. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 00:29, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support per MOS:JOBTITLES (and we should apply it to lists of "Kings" and "Presidents" too, as we did with List of mayors of Birmingham, List of lord mayors of London, List of mayors of Leeds, List of mayors of Cambridge, List of provosts of Aberdeen, List of chairmen of the House Republican Conference, and List of prime ministers of Elizabeth II – each of those was the result of a formal RM, and many of those were multi-page moves). —BarrelProof (talk) 12:20, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose (with the same exception Station1/AlanM1 mentions). A governor of New York is any ol' governor wandering around New York; perhaps they're part of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors. The Governor of New York, capital G, is the person who holds the office of specifically governing New York. SnowFire (talk) 00:02, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose all but List of living former United States Governors → List of living former United States governors which I support per Station1, et al. Regarding the discussion just above, for perhaps a more apt analogy, consider: List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom (not "List of prime ministers of the United Kingdom"). --В²C ☎ 21:57, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yet we also have List of premiers of Alberta. Examples for both forms of capitalization can be found across Wikipedia, but what matters (or should matter) is what the most reputable manuals of style out there say. This is basic orthography, yet we are debating it on the basis of personal preferences. Surtsicna (talk) 22:13, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, I get that if I was just referring to all of the governors of Alaska, I wouldn't capitalize. Sentence case. I get it. But here we have a "List of X", and that X, in my mind, is, for example, the Governors of California. I guess I'm saying in this context title case makes sense, though I admit I can't explain exactly why. --В²C ☎ 23:24, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. There is a funny archaic English language thing here. It seems to have to do with regal, and vice regal, and regal derivatives, Queen of England, Governor of New York, President of the USA, which have proper name plurals Queens of England, Governors of New York and Presidents of the USA; and this does not apply broadly to most offices, Premier of Victoria is not accepted as a proper name that pluralises to Premiers of Victoria. Oppose hypercorrection, these attempts make English look like it has consistent rules that it never had. Unless someone is pointing to a quality reputable source that name these lists in lowercase governors. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:21, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is The Chicago Manual of Style not reputable enough? It is supposed to be "one of the most widely used and respected style guides in the United States", and I have pointed to it several times. Under "8.21 Civil titles", it says: "Much of the usage below is contradicted by the official literature typically generated by political offices, where capitalization of a title in any position is the norm. In formal academic prose, however, civil titles are capitalized only when used as part of the name." Premier of Victoria and Governor of New York are both heads of government of subnational entities; there is no reason to treat one as a proper name and not the other. The question, however, seems to be whether Wikipedia should follow official websites and ceremoniously (as you say, archaically) capitalize nouns or whether it should follow academic practice. I am definitely in favor of the latter, especially considering that Wikipedia strongly prefers academic sources over self-published sources in all other situations. Our Manual of Style evidently also favors academic practice. Surtsicna (talk) 15:13, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Our Manual of Style, admittedly just a guideline, says things like "Standard or commonly used names of an office are treated as proper names (David Cameron was British Prime Minister...)" and gives as an example "Richard Nixon was President of the United States" but "Richard Nixon was the president of the United States", analogous to "List of Governors of New York" but "List of the governors of New York". Station1 (talk) 17:31, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • That analogy is yours only. It is not backed by any stylebook nor by our Manual of Style. In fact, our Manual of Style clearly says that plural forms should be lowercase. The Chicago Manual of Style and the Associated Press Stylebook both say that "governors" should be lowercase. The former has been quoted. The latter says, under "governor", that the word governor should only be capitalized "when used as a formal title before one or more names" and lowercase "in all other uses". Surtsicna (talk) 23:54, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Surtsicna, I Told you the reason, regal vice regal and pseudo regal. You are arguing for hypercorrection, forcing a nice looking rule that never existed. Inserting “the” in every case would sidestep the issue, but it would be ugly. They are fine as they are. The Chicago Manual of Style is good, but I mean a real source for a real list of governors of sovereign states. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:11, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • FYI, US states are not sovereign. --В²C ☎ 23:21, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am not arguing for "hypercorrection" nor am I forcing a rule that never existed. It clearly exists in several manuals of style, including Wikipedia's own. Your demand for "a real source" is unreasonable. I have cited two of the most authoritative publications on style and orthography as well as Wikipedia's own manual of style. Your argument is based on an unsubstantiated anecdote about "regal, viceregal and pseudo regal" titles, which does not exist in any style guide. Surtsicna (talk) 23:54, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Show me a reliable source for a list of the governors of New York that titles the list "List of governors of New York". This discussion is about titling this article, and the current spelling predominates in sources. Authoritative publications on style and orthography would be sources for the article on Style guide, but I am not sure they source information on state governors. The rule never existed in English, we are talking about an English peculiarity. Style guides as a rule are all revisionist or hypercorrecting. The Wikipedia:Manual of Style is just a guideline, it doesn't even follow its own guidance (what's with the capital S?), I've given an explanation for why some positions are treated at proper names but with the first name pluralised, and the bottom line is that Wikipedia follows its sources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:13, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • We are not debating information on state governors. We are debating capitalization, i.e. orthography, which really should not be up to much debate. You claim that the word is capitalized in sources but do not provide any sources. It is mind-boggling that you keep repeating that the rules of capitalization (taught in primary school) never existed in English after I cited two of the most authoritative style guides in the United States. That's pure obstinacy. Surtsicna (talk) 09:25, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • These discussions rarely cause me to laugh out loud. But this statement triggered me to do exactly that: Style guides as a rule are all revisionist or hypercorrecting. The Wikipedia:Manual of Style is just a guideline, it doesn't even follow its own guidance (what's with the capital S?) ROTFLOL! Good one, SmokeyJoe! --В²C ☎ 17:33, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • I’m glad you appreciate the criticality of these discussions. Why should the List of Governors or the Great State of Idaho not be capitalised to indicate their importance? What about the Elected Chief Dogcather of Boise? I think these governors are not inherently different to the List of Presidents of the United States. Why not List of the presidents of the United States. The first indicates a particularly special group of Presidents, not just anyone who has presided. It’s the same with governors. The capitalisation conveys meaning, much like Star Trek Into Darkness. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:01, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
              • Because "the formality (officialness), specificity, or unusualness of a title is not a reason to capitalize it". Your idea to convey importance through capitalization is misguided, as is your suggestion that the state governors of the US are more important than the state premiers of Australia and thus deserve capitalization while the latter do not. If we have List of popes and List of Roman emperors, I am sure that the basic orthography can apply to US governors too. Surtsicna (talk) 10:05, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                • Surtsicna I think misunderstands me. It is not my idea that I support the converting of importance through capitalisation, which is a common style that the WP:MOS properly rejects. I am saying, not idea, that in cases where capitalisation changes the meaning, is it not simply capitalisation and not subject to the MOS idealisation of good style. These are not my ideas, I am just commenting on the convention. The Australian case is interstingly more extreme, because the Governor of Victoria is an unelected unimportant (power-wise) position, and the Premier of Victoria, aka leader of the House, is very powerful, but not symbolically important in this near anachronistic sense. And I am NOT saying this is how things should be, but it is how things are. Positions of great symbolism are capitalised in a funny Latin-esque style. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:21, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                  • To editor SmokeyJoe: you do make a good case that almost swayed me. However, you point out an interesting flaw in your argument with those Governor of Victoria and Premier of Victoria descriptions. I would have never known the diff if you hadn't pointed it out. Isn't that what style manuals are for? Wikipedia's MoS is formed to seek out and to apply consistency in article titles so that ignorant readers like myself, who are unaware of the "regal vice regal and pseudo regal" unwritten and unspoken "rules" that make our MoS's consistency efforts a matter of "hypercorrection", are able to enjoy the consistency without having to reargue and reargue the already-argued-and-settled community consensus of the MoS. So I for one must keep hold of my stand for consistency in article titles and ignore the "pomp and circumstance" of the unwritten regal rules of English. No wonder I never aced that class! Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  13:21, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Thanks Paine. I think we are on the same page. These pseudo regal chivalric stuff is confusing, anachronistic. Wikipedia might do well to abandon it, but at least let’s know exactly what we are doing. I hesitate about Wikipedia leading with changes, but it is not forbidden, as a style issue. My other misgiving is that it should be all or nothing, include List of Presidents of the United States. I think consistency is important, it makes it easier for non expert readers. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:45, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral for almost everything. I just wanted to point out how this is likely to be the longest-running move request in WP's history, because ain't nobody gonna wanna move all them articles. I sure ain't going to. I'll pause to support the second move only, though that should not be taken as opposition or support for any other move. I support it as per the reasons listed above, but also for the reason that this makes me an involved editor and that therefore I cannot later try to talk myself into moving fifty pages (apart from clearing space for about forty former redirects). Red Slash 00:30, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
😂. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:51, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support second move, neutral on the rest. Now I'm also involved and don't have to move or not move all those pages. Yay! SITH (talk) 12:55, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Sorry to say, as much as I would love to close this RM, I'm already too heavily involved with past RMs and other discussions on this style topic, so I don't have authority to even relist this RM, let alone close it. The nom's rationale is sound, and those of opposers are chock full of POV and personal opinions. There is no Wikipedia:MoS (community consensus) validity to any of the opposition rationales, although judging by past discussions, a closer at this point in time would probably still go with "no consensus", with the possible exception of the second entry, which does appear to have a consensus to move. Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  16:07, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not only are the opposition rationales not grounded in WP:MoS, which is presumably the product of a decade of community discussion, they do not appear to be grounded in any style guide at all. They boil down to a personal preference for capital letters. How could a closer go with "no consensus"? On what grounds? If move requests are polls, why do we bother discussing? Surtsicna (talk) 19:06, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just going by past discussions such as the List of Presidents of the United States RM. The strongest argument there, which adversely affected the closer's decision was that when offices and titles such as "President of the United States" were made plural, as in "Presidents of the United States", the pluralized office should still retain its capitalization. And that, even though it slapped the MoS's community consensus in the face, and even though "presidents" is a description and not actually part of an office title, therefore not a proper noun. My comment in that RM discussion was that this needs to be decided in a centralized venue before more of these RMs occur. Of course, it's already been decided and added to the MoS long ago; however, some of us don't consider that fact, that community consensus, to be prescriptive or definitive... or even remotely settled. This needs to be settled once and for all! For this issue, there is no consistency on Wikipedia – see incorrect: List of Presidents of the United States vs. correct: List of presidents of the United States by age. Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  23:12, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree with Paine, support #2 List of living former United States governors. That one is different, it does not belong in the same list as the others. “Governors of X” is a special construction. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:10, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • How are you agreeing with Paine when Paine supports all the moves and describes your screw-orthography-and-community-consensus argument as "chock full of POV and personal opinions"? Paine explicitly says it's not a special construction and that the plural form is not a proper noun. Surtsicna (talk) 10:02, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Just saying that I agree with the community consensus that shaped the MoS. "Governor" of... is a title and an office and therefore a proper noun; however, "governors" of... is neither a title nor an office, it's a description and therefore a common noun. Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  11:48, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with Paine on what he says about #2, none of my arguments made here apply to #2. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:27, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Wipur (talk) 23:31, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I'm a personal sucker for AP style. But the nomination as proposed is in line with the majority of style guide usage.--Yaksar (let's chat) 02:13, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. It'll be a tedious task moving all those pages over, but I think it's for the best.—Woko Sapien (talk) 15:48, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

List of Governors of New York Sate

[edit]

In the list of other offices held by Governors, Theodore Roosevelt is shown as having become Vice-President, which he did; six months or so after which he became PRESIDENT, when McKinley was assassinated. That fact should be incorporated in your list. It is a VERY good list throughout. Thanks. Katharine Wilson Conroy 47.22.137.78 (talk) 19:59, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It does mention that he was president? --Golbez (talk) 20:17, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Calculation of time in offce

[edit]

The governor's term of office starts at midnight on 1 January and ends at the last second of 31 December (1 Jul/30 Jun before 1820). So the calculation of time in office should be inclusive of both of those dates. So (for example), Mario Cuomo and George Pataki both served 12 years 0 days in office, not 11 years 364 days. I don't think I have sufficient expertise to fix the coding in the table, but maybe somebody else could? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JayZed (talk • contribs) 09:55, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is correct. If there is no objection, I’ll update the chart to reflect the correct math. —Coemgenus (talk) 23:34, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm here to report that the math is still showing the durations the way JayZed said. I would fix it if I knew how. --Keeves (talk) 02:37, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I figured out how to fix it: In the "ayd" section, just add one date to the date they left office. This "ayd" line will not affect the display of his first and last days in office; it only affect the calculation of how long. Therefore, for Pataki, for example, change |rowspan="3"| {{ayd|1995|01|01|2006|12|31}} to |rowspan="3"| {{ayd|1995|01|01|2007|01|01}} I am going to do this now. I hope I get it right. --Keeves (talk) 02:51, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, done. If anyone sees errors, please fix. Thanks. --Keeves (talk) 03:39, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

re time in office

[edit]

I don't see how it's relevant to know the exact number of days someone spent in office, especially when so many are exactly 2 years. (and are, in fact, calculated incorrectly, since the template can only subtract days but has no knowledge of the midnight-to-midnight posting) The ones that served less are easily noted by election column and the why-the-left bit which I'm working on adding in a moment. So I won't push on this at this moment, but when I get these other columns up to snuff I would like to revisit the time-in-office bit. --Golbez (talk) 19:19, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kathy Hochul as New York's first female governor

[edit]

Should that be mentioned in the lede as it mentions that David Paterson was the state's first African-American and legally blind governor?

Notelist: Andrew Cuomo's Resignation

[edit]

ab: ^ Cuomo resigned due to allegations of sexual harassment.[6]

Due to should be because of, which is correct grammar and usage. Of course, I'm just an anonymous contributor and will defer to the official Wikipedia editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.85.24 (talk) 01:47, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge of List of governors of New York by time in office into List of governors of New York

[edit]

the same result can be achieved by the reader by sorting the correct column of the List of governors of New York page. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 13:26, 3 July 2022 (UTC) -MPGuy2824 (talk) 13:26, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I boldly redirected the new list to this one. Indeed, this list is sortable and is well-cited (as a featured list), so there's not really much to merge aside from perhaps a few additional citations, which are accessible in the redirect's history if desired. ComplexRational (talk) 01:43, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Midnight

[edit]

Does anyone know when the midnight thing started? The article presently says early terms ended June 30 and the next term began July 1, but that's not backed up by anything, and I think whoever did that assumed the midnight rule applied back then. I'm right now operating on the assumption that it started mattering when they went to a January 1 inauguration, but if anyone has any hard info that'd be great. --Golbez (talk) 03:30, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More January 1 shenanigans

[edit]

All modern sources say that Reuben Fenton took office on January 1, 1865. I even found a source from as far back as 1910 saying this: [1] --- except, wait a second. That source says "Monday, January 1, 1865". January 1, 1865 was a Sunday. And I think this mistake has been repeated forever, because every contemporary news source I've found on newspapers.com says he was inaugurated at noon on Monday, January 2 (example: [2]) And from what I can tell, the constitution in effect at the time did not specify the start date of the term, so unless someone can find some source that says that, by law, the governor-elect became governor on Janaury 1 automatically, then I think we need to shift Reuben Fenton's start date to January 2. --Golbez (talk) 05:06, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, more on the midnight stuff:

  • 1821 constitution: "The governor ... first elected under this Constitution, shall enter on the duties of their respective offices on the first day of January, one thousand eight hundred and twenty-three; and the governor ... now in office, shall continue to hold the same until the first day of January 1823, and no longer." This implies that the changeover happens on January 1, not in between. So. For this constitution the term is considered to end Janaury 1 and begin January 1.
  • 1846 constitution: "... the governor and lieutenant governor in office when this Constitution shall take effect, shall hold their respective offices until and including the thirty-first day of December of that year." Implying that they cannot be in office January 1, and so the changeover is at December 31/midnight.
  • 1894 constitution: "The Governor ... shall hold office until and including the thirty-first day of December, 1896" "until and including" implying the whole of December 31 but nothing more, implying a midnight changeover.

But,

  • I find no mention of any kind of midnight changeover until 1899, when Teddy Roosevelt was took the oath of office on December 31, implying he took office at midnight January 1.
  • After that, I find mentions of midnight changeovers in 1905 ("took place at midnight tonight") and 1911 ("in power at midnight") [I've only worked up to 1915 so far]; the changeovers of 1901 ("took office at 12:30pm"), 1907 ("Hughes takes oath at noon [Jan 1]") and 1913 ("inaugurated at noon [Jan 1]") explicitly give a time other than midnight.
  • I'd like to just be able to say "all governors after 1846 switch at midnight" or, more reasonable, "all governors after 1894", but the people at the time don't seem to have thought of it that way.
  • Therefore, right now, my plan is to include a midnight changeover only when an early/midnight oath is specifically mentioned in contemporary reporting. Otherwise, if the locals didn't think the governor had changed, why should we disagree?

I'd love to hear anyone's thoughts or other evidence on this. I tried googling around for "new york governor midnight" to see if there was a particular history or reasoning but Hochul's recent inauguration crowded out all results. --Golbez (talk) 15:25, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To put into short terms: What's really messing this up is the constitution never specifies when a term begins, only when it ends. In most cases I've seen, when a successor is delayed in taking office, the predecessor stays on until they've done so, which implies that we should only include midnight changeovers when they were explicitly so. --Golbez (talk) 15:26, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oooh, I found an interesting one from 1921: [3] "Judge Miller took the informal oath of office late [Dec 31] ... in order that the state would not be without a governor between midnight tonight when Governor Smith's term expired, and noon tomorrow when the formal oath of office will be administered" At least this particular newspaper thinks the term ended right at midnight and ... I guess an interregnum? Presumably they don't think it passed down the line of succession. --Golbez (talk) 15:41, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

re 'length of term' table

[edit]

The new table largely recreated the main table, listing names, terms, parties, and sources, while adding a single new datapoint of length of term. This is a lot of effort for a single datapoint. And my personal feeling is, it's not an important datapoint. It doesn't really add anything to an understanding of the subject beyond what the main table does. But I don't own the article, so I'm simply making my argument. --Golbez (talk) 15:16, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Van Buren has an RfC

[edit]

Martin Van Buren has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Emiya1980 (talk) 05:57, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_governors_of_New_York&oldid=1242691808"