Talk:Scott Murphy

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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. 

The result of the proposal was move per request. I have determined for myself ( & vs.  & ) that the assertions below regarding the primacy of the politician as a topic appear to be correct (and hope that for future moves in this vein, some evidence is provided, nudge nudge, wink, wink).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:25, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Scott Murphy (politician) → Scott Murphy &mdash; There are only 2 Scott Murphy's, and he is by far more notable/likely to be searched for. The other Scott Murphy doesn't have his own article, only a section in Two Guys from Andromeda. I propose we move this to Scott Murphy, with "This article is about the US Congressman. For the programmer, see Two Guys from Andromeda." atop the article. -- Austin512  ( talk  •  contribs ) 03:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree to move &mdash; \`C RAZY `( lN )`S ANE `/ 08:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

Order of sections
As I read this article, I find it rather jarring that the section giving the details of Murphy's service in the House (including his committee assignments and major votes) comes before the section regarding his elections. In other words, we have his early life and business career, then we have what he did in the House, THEN we have how he got into the House (and out.) Is this a standard format or protocol, or is it just discretionary with the writers/editors of the article? If it is discretionary, would anyone object to putting the elections section first? I think the article would work better in chronological order (although the sub-section on his loss for election to a full term can go above his committee assignments and votes, especially since the sub-section on the 2010 election is only one sentence.) I just checked the article on Leonard Lance, a non-randomly chosen Congressman who first took office the same year as Murphy, and it is in chronological order, so the order of this article does not seem to be "required." (I did not want to compare Murphy's article to someone who is very well known, out of concern that that might affect the logical order of the sections, so I picked Lance, someone else who is probably barely known outside of his district. Neutron (talk) 17:31, 30 May 2013 (UTC)