Talk:Luis Fortuño/Archives/2010/May

Infobox

First, I strongly suggest that inserrted material which has stood the test of time and multiple editors not be removed without ample discussion. Having said that, in a jurisdiction in which the overriding issue is the fesolution of its political status problem, being the co-founder and second president of an organization that deals with that precise issue, which has stood the test of time over 30 years, which has produced the mainstream governmental leaders (a Governor, A Secretary of State, two members of Congress, a Senate President, etc) and which, in fact, is holding elections this weekend, is an acci=omplishment worthy of being noted in an infobox. There are no set rules for particular infoboxes. Once again, let's talk before we strike material that has stood the test of time and multiple editors.Pr4ever (talk) 11:21, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the PRSSA has to do with the political status issue, but the infobox is not an infobox about political status. PRSSA offices are not popularly-elected offices; the PRSSA entry in the governor infobox violates WP:SOAP. The fact that PPRSSA has done all of those wonderful things should not obfuscate the minds of those making entries into the governor infobox. Those PRSSA accomplishments may be worthy of mentioning in, say, a PRSSA infobox, but not in a governor infobox. And yes, there are set rules for particular infoboxes: [1], which is why I also removed the Prez entry from the infobox - and also justified fully. BTW, I've taken the liberty of adding a header to this section since you didn't and suspect this is what you intended. Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 22:15, 23 May 2010 (UTC)