Talk:Michael Fedele

URGENT: What is Fedele's order as lieutenant governor?
Mike Fedele's biography on the state's lieutenant governor website states that he is the "107th" lieutenant governor of Connecticut. This figure is mentioned in this article's first paragraph. However, this article's infobox lists Fedele as just the "87th." The difference in numbers here is severe – a gap of 20.

The infobox for Jodi Rell lists her as having been the 85th lieutenant governor, and the one on Kevin B. Sullivan says that he was the 86th. This seems to logically suggest that Fedele is therefore the 87th, but then why does the state list it differently? Are they, perhaps, counting lieutenant governors form Connecticut's colonial period in their count?

Regardless of why, this article cannot claim that Fedele is both the 107th and 87th lieutenant governor. We need to pick a standard – a reliable and accurate one – and go with it. Please help me figure out which figure should be used to refer to Michael Fedele's order. Thank you! --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 06:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Fedele is the 107th LT Governor. The number is higher because: 1) several LT's were elevated to Governor, 2) serveral Governors had multiple LTs (heck, John N. Dempsey had 4! Cross had 3, etc...). The list List of lieutenant governors of Connecticut bears it out 87+33 = 120. Remove the ones that held it multiple times and it comes out to 107. This is a bit of accounting trickery on the part of the State, as if you consider List of colonial governors of Connecticut, they don't count all the Governors either (IE: they count each one once, not how many times a Governor served ala Grover Cleaveland with the US Presidency!!) yet start the modern governor list at #16.Markvs88 (talk) 14:16, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Some reconciliation between the lead sentence and the infobox should be achieved because it does look like a contradiction now. Perhaps we could add a parenthetical in the lead "(including the colonial era)"? Abby Kelleyite (talk) 15:05, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that a note should be added to avoid making the article appear to contradict itself. In fact, I've just added one which can be read in a newly added notes section here. Feel free to modify the wording to be more clear if necessary. --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 04:57, 13 August 2010 (UTC)