Talk:Jake Corman

External link descriptiona
There is some confusion about the proper way to describe the external links. One user, User:Senatedon has objected to the description of of www.jakecorman.com as the "official party website," claiming that it "incorrectly implies that this "official" website is political." However, www.jakecorman.com is in fact operated by the "Senate Republican Communications," which is clearly the Senate Republican Caucus. Thus, the descriptor of "official party website" is correct. Furthermore, the concern from Senatedon, that the "official party website" is misleading should be assuaged because I have just added www.jakecorman.net to the external links with the descriptor "official campaign website." Finally, the first link is correctly described as "official PA Senate website," because it is the official profile from the Pennsylvania Senate.--Blargh29 (talk) 03:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks Blargh29 for discussing the labeling of external websites for PA State Senators. I believe that there should be consistent labeling of these websites.  For example, of the 50 PA state senators, not many have the www.legis.state.pa.us page listed as "official senate website".
 * Many have their caucus operated websites listed as "official PA senate website". Only one other has the caucus website listed as "official party website", while one has the caucus operated website identified as "official caucus website".  The majority of the 50 state senator listings have their caucus websites listed as "official PA senate website".  I suggest that all 50 senator have the www.legis.state.pa.us site listed, all 50 have their caucus websites listed as "official caucus website", and all 50 have campaign sites listed if one exists.  This will bring continuity to the 50 listings  --Senatedon  —Preceding undated comment added 04:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC).
 * I agree that there should be uniformity. I would totally support a wide-scale change to match the link descriptions in this page.--Blargh29 (talk) 04:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Appropriations/Policy Committee succession boxes
I'm removing them once again because I feel it makes no sense for this page to be the only page, for either party, to have such boxes. The successors/predecessors don't even have such boxes on their pages. I just think it takes away from continuity. If someone is willing to add these boxes for relevent senators for both parties (as far back as for those senators who have pages), I'd support it. But right now it just seems disjointed. EATC (talk) 05:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree. I like the inter-party position succession boxes and I really dislike the duplicative Senate succession box (because it is already in the infobox. So, I would do it the opposite. --Blargh29 (talk) 05:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The only part I would disagree with is the Senate box part (I only support using it when the article is so long you no longer see the infobox when you scroll down). Regardless, I'm not disputing the applicability of these boxes...I agree with you that they are useful. I'm just saying, in this instance, until other Senators' pages can be updated to include such boxes, I don't think it makes sense to have this be the one and only page with these two succession boxes. EATC (talk) 05:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Blargh29 on this issue. Further, this is not the only page to have these Party Succession Boxes: check Senators Dominic F. Pileggi, Jeffrey Piccola, Robert J. Mellow and Jane Orie.  We had a conversation about continuity earlier, and we should be consistent on this issue.  If you insist on removing these boxes on the Jake Corman page, do it for the four remaining as well. --Senatedon (talk) 05:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't insist on removing anything...I was the one that added the boxes for all of the pages you're refrencing. However, when I added those boxes, I added it for all officeholders all the way back. Take for instance, the office of Republican Whip...not only did I add it for Jane Orie, but I added it all the way back through Piccola, Brightbill, Fisher, back to John Stauffer (who does not have a page). My issue in this instance is that the boxes are being added for only one page...not predecessors, not successors. It seems bush-league and lacks continuity. Again, I am not arguing against these boxes. I like them, and actaully am the one who did all of the research to add them to all of the pages you sighted. My opinion, however: if you're going to add them to one page, trace it back as far as you can go...it looks bad if you just add these boxes for the one page you're interested in. Look at my argument more carefully; this is not a simple case of me disagreeing with the applicability of these boxes (I dont). Add it to one page, add it to all. If you insist on adding it for one page, add it to all [relevant] pages. EATC (talk) 06:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jake Corman. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080515034232/http://www.electionreturns.state.pa.us/ElectionsInformation.aspx?FunctionID=13&ElectionID=7&OfficeID=12 to http://www.electionreturns.state.pa.us/ElectionsInformation.aspx?FunctionID=13&ElectionID=7&OfficeID=12
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080529013727/http://www.electionreturns.state.pa.us/ElectionsInformation.aspx?FunctionID=13&ElectionID=24&OfficeID=12 to http://www.electionreturns.state.pa.us/ElectionsInformation.aspx?FunctionID=13&ElectionID=24&OfficeID=12

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:16, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

UDP/COI templates
After reading this article (requires a subscription or viewing in incognito mode), I have added COI and UDP templates to the article pending some sort of cleanup.--SamHolt6 (talk) 18:52, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Lead summarizes the body + weird SYNTH content
Editors keep removing content from the lead, even though the body devotes considerable space to the content and the content is key to Corman's long-term notability. One editor, Jlmicek, keeps adding WP:SYNTH text to the body that cobbles together claims from Corman which are presented as factual statements. Both of these should seek consensus for altering long-standing content and adding new content. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:25, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * In response to my edits, I am not contending whether or not the statements regarding the 2020 election are factual (though I could see an argument that it is not quite neutral, but that is not my current concern). My concern is with the length to which the subject is discussed. As per Manual of Style/Lead section, greater detail should be saved for the body of the article. As the article currently stands, a decent-sized portion of the body is dedicated to the subject, so adding specific details of the 2020 election in the lead is unnecessary. Acknowledging the controversy is acceptable, but it should be no more than a mention of its occurrence, less than a paragraph (as the manual of style recommends no more than two paragraphs for an article of 6,000 characters). Specifics can be reserved for the body, which features much of the same information with citations. If the consensus is to keep this paragraph in the lead, then I at least ask that citations be provided. --Metamorph985 (talk) 23:25, 20 February 2022 (UTC)