Talk:Catherine Samba-Panza

Edits

 * No reason for removal of the may of Bangui bit + WP:OL for country names
 * without reason?
 * without source?
 * remove a source?\
 * SOURCE?
 * AGAIN unsourced
 * Why remove source and the inline citations marking where it is sourced to?(Lihaas (talk) 06:01, 24 January 2014 (UTC)).

Infobox
She was mayor of Bangui for however long, that fact is not changed and she was sourced to have been in that role. We don't nit pick what is important...nevertheless the mayor of a capital city is important. We have that for mayors of smaller western cities too.

Also in consistency across articles, the birth place doesn't need the current name as the wikilink provides that. See where Fort Lamy links...that is then OVERLINK.(Lihaas (talk) 06:11, 24 January 2014 (UTC)).


 * Then unlink N'Djamena itself. I tend to repeat a link if it's the first instance of it being said in the article under the later historical name for the sake of reader clarity.


 * Regarding the Bangui mayoralty, I see no reason for it to be included in the article as she wasn't well known for this 8-month role she had in this post after being appointed to it without a known date or a firm knowledge of her predecessor, let alone links to any of these variables (the office or the predecessor). It's in the prose of the article with the most information we can decidedly say we have available to us (after some considerable research on my part attempting to answer these) and that is enough for the encyclopedic purposes of the article. Were we to have more of this information, I would say fine, put it in. Lacking anything but the title (without an accompanying article) and a rough timeframe of her appointment, I think it becomes CLUTTER. Therequiembellishere (talk) 06:17, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Well other articles that have births before name changes in city just wikilink to it directly.
 * Its not about her being well known its the importance of the role, the capital city. That was more than likely why she became president (and the bipartisan support, both then and now). The date or predecessor is irrelevant to the role. Weve got date and the importance of the role, that's enough. The other variables don't even show up, so no question of it being blank. Some offices are multiple and even minor yet on the infobox.
 * btw- thanks for discussing. See were resolved most things now.Lihaas (talk) 06:22, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Saying why she was chosen is dangerously close to being speculation. George LeMieux was appointed to fill Mel Martinez's Senate seat because he was Charlie Crist's Chief of Staff and Crist wanted a seat-warmer. We are not going to have a box for "Chief of Staff to the Governor of Florida" with no start date, no predecessor and no successor. What's important, and fully known, is that she is President now. Her past is obviously important, but that's why a whole article exists and not just an infobox. So if we can describe it in prose (which we can pretty much do with almost anything encyclopedic), we should and avoid CLUTTERING or just cramming too much into the infobox. Especially if we're missing so many pieces of information. The faults of having a primarily white and American editor base are well-known across Wikipedia in lending undue weight to, say the Mayor of Somerville but we're not going to solve all of that right here, right now. We're not going to go anywhere with just us anyway so I'm going away from this discussion for now. Therequiembellishere (talk) 06:31, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * wELL IM not citing that as a reason. ;)
 * True, and I was using precedence on other ariticles. (but OSE) but frankly even ive thought its too big. guess well make the headstart.
 * Lead mention should suffice too, and its there.
 * Lihaas (talk) 06:41, 24 January 2014 (UTC)