body.skin-vector-2022 .mw-parser-output .skiptotalk,body.mw-mf .mw-parser-output .skiptotalk{display:none}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a{display:block;text-align:center;font-style:italic;line-height:1.9}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::before,.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::after{content:"↓";font-size:larger;line-height:1.6;font-style:normal}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::before{float:left}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::after{float:right}Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of presidents of the United States article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17: 30 days

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

view · edit

Frequently asked questions

This section is here to provide answers to some questions that have been previously discussed on this talk page.
Note: This FAQ is only here to let people know that these points have previously been addressed, not to prevent any further discussion of these issues.

To view an explanation to the answer, click the [show] link to the right of the question.

General Concerns and Questions

Q1: John Hanson was actually the first president.

A1: John Hanson was the first President of the Continental Congress to serve a term under the Articles of Confederation. This office is different from President of the United States, which was only created after the US Constitution took effect in 1789.

Related Talk discussions: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]

Q2: __________ was acting president for a short time, why isn't he on the list?

A2: A period during which a vice-president or other person temporarily becomes Acting President under the Twenty-fifth Amendment is not a presidency, because the president remains in office during such a period.

Related Talk discussions: [6], [7], [8]

Q3: Grover Cleveland is listed twice, William McKinley was actually the 24th president.

A3: Cleveland served two non-consecutive terms, so while McKinley was in fact the 24th person to serve as president, Cleveland was both the 22nd and 24th president. Or another way: the next president after Benjamin Harrison was the 24th president. It should also be noted that almost all reference materials enumerate Cleveland in this way.

Related Talk discussions: [9], [10], [11], [12]

Q4: Harry Truman's middle name was "S". Since it's not an initial, it should not have the period after it.

A4: Harry Truman's middle name was in fact S; however, most reference materials still use the period. Truman himself signed his own name as "Harry S. Truman". Both with or without the period may be regarded as correct.

Related Talk discussions: [13], [14], [15], [16]

Q5: Democratic is an adjective. Presidents of this party should be listed as the noun, "Democrat".

A5: The correct name of the political party is the Democratic Party. In this case, the adjective is used to describe the party, which is what the list is showing. Note that Democrat Party can be seen as an epithet - see Democrat Party (epithet).

Related Talk discussions: [17]

Q6: Please add another column to the list for ___________.

A6: Every effort was made to show the most sought-after information in a concise table. Those interested in president lists based on other criteria should see Template:Lists of US Presidents and Vice Presidents.

Related Talk discussions: [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24]

Q7: I have an issue with one of the pictures used.

A7: It is recommended that the same picture from the president's individual article infobox be used on this list by default. However, any clear view of the face will work since the pictures are so small. Keep in mind that some images on external sites may be subject to copyright, and therefore difficult to bring into Wikipedia. If you have a specific concern about an image, feel free to discuss it here.

Related Talk discussions: [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37]

List of presidents of the United States is a former featured list. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page and why it was removed. If it has improved again to featured list standard, you may renominate the article to become a featured list.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
June 15, 2005	Featured list candidate	Promoted
October 30, 2008	Featured list removal candidate	Demoted
June 26, 2009	Featured list candidate	Not promoted
March 3, 2021	Peer review	Reviewed
Current status: Former featured list

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Politics and Government List‑class

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
List	This article has been rated as List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as High-importance).

Lists List‑class High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
List	This article has been rated as List-class on the project's quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics: American List‑class Top‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
List	This article has been rated as List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Top-importance).

United States: Presidents / Government List‑class High‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
List	This article has been rated as List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject United States Presidents (assessed as Top-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Top-importance).

Other talk page banners

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This article has been viewed enough times to make it onto the all-time Top 100 list. It has had 100 million views since December 2007.

This article has been viewed enough times in a single year to make it into the Top 50 Report annual list. This happened in 2016 and 2020.

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 7 times. The weeks in which this happened:

Sortability

Please discuss further in the request for comment (mainly question 1, and also question 2). (Closed to avoid duplicate discussions.) Tol (talk | contribs) @ 19:52, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello! I think the table should be sortable. The issue is that merged cells aren't compatible with sorting. Therefore, I propose that there should be one row for each presidency. Multiple vice presidencies could be placed into the same cell, with term start/end times added. A demonstration of how this would look:


Presidency^[a]		Name (Birth–Death)		Election	Vice President
1	April 30, 1789 – March 4, 1797	George Washington (1732–1799)	Unaffiliated	1788–89 1792	John Adams^[c]
3	March 4, 1801 – March 4, 1809	Thomas Jefferson (1743–1826)	Democratic- Republican	1800 1804	Aaron Burr George Clinton
4	March 4, 1809 – March 4, 1817	James Madison (1751–1836)	Democratic- Republican	1808 1812	George Clinton^[d] Vacant (after Apr. 20, 1812) Elbridge Gerry^[d] Vacant (after Nov. 23, 1814)
6	March 4, 1825 – March 4, 1829	John Quincy Adams (1767–1848)	Democratic-Republican^[e] National Republican	1824	John C. Calhoun^[f]^[g]

notes
Notes ^ Presidents are numbered according to uninterrupted periods served by the same person. For example, George Washington served two consecutive terms and is counted as the first president (not the first and second). Upon the resignation of 37th president Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford became the 38th president even though he simply served out the remainder of Nixon's second term and was never elected to the presidency in his own right. Grover Cleveland was both the 22nd president and the 24th president because his two terms were not consecutive. A vice president who temporarily becomes acting president under the Twenty-fifth Amendment to the Constitution is not counted, because the president remains in office during such a period. ^ Reflects the president's political party at the start of their presidency. Changes during their time in office are noted. Also reflects the vice president's political party unless otherwise noted beside the individual's name. ^ Political parties had not been anticipated when the Constitution was drafted in 1787 and ratified in 1788, nor did they exist at the time of the first presidential election in 1788–89. When they did develop, during Washington's first term, Adams joined the faction that became the Federalist Party. The elections of 1792 were the first ones in the United States that were contested on anything resembling a partisan basis. ^ ^a ^b Died in office of natural causes. ^ Early during Adams' term the Democratic-Republican Party dissolved; his allies in Congress and at the state-level were referred to as "Adams' Men" during the Adams presidency. When Andrew Jackson became president in 1829, this group became the "Anti-Jackson" opposition, and organized themselves as the National Republican Party. ^ John Calhoun, formerly a Democratic-Republican, founded the Nullifier Party in 1828 to oppose the Tariff of 1828 and advance the cause of states' rights, but was brought on as Andrew Jackson's running mate in the 1828 presidential election in an effort to broaden the democratic coalition led by Jackson. ^ Resigned from office

notes

Notes

^ Presidents are numbered according to uninterrupted periods served by the same person. For example, George Washington served two consecutive terms and is counted as the first president (not the first and second). Upon the resignation of 37th president Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford became the 38th president even though he simply served out the remainder of Nixon's second term and was never elected to the presidency in his own right. Grover Cleveland was both the 22nd president and the 24th president because his two terms were not consecutive. A vice president who temporarily becomes acting president under the Twenty-fifth Amendment to the Constitution is not counted, because the president remains in office during such a period.
^ Reflects the president's political party at the start of their presidency. Changes during their time in office are noted. Also reflects the vice president's political party unless otherwise noted beside the individual's name.
^ Political parties had not been anticipated when the Constitution was drafted in 1787 and ratified in 1788, nor did they exist at the time of the first presidential election in 1788–89. When they did develop, during Washington's first term, Adams joined the faction that became the Federalist Party. The elections of 1792 were the first ones in the United States that were contested on anything resembling a partisan basis.
^ ^a ^b Died in office of natural causes.
^ Early during Adams' term the Democratic-Republican Party dissolved; his allies in Congress and at the state-level were referred to as "Adams' Men" during the Adams presidency. When Andrew Jackson became president in 1829, this group became the "Anti-Jackson" opposition, and organized themselves as the National Republican Party.
^ John Calhoun, formerly a Democratic-Republican, founded the Nullifier Party in 1828 to oppose the Tariff of 1828 and advance the cause of states' rights, but was brought on as Andrew Jackson's running mate in the 1828 presidential election in an effort to broaden the democratic coalition led by Jackson.
^ Resigned from office

What do you think? Tol (talk | contribs) @ 21:39, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, let's not fix what's not broken. It's best we don't repeat the veeps (Clinton & Calhoun). GoodDay (talk) 21:46, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think the benefit gained with sortability (mainly to sort by name) outweighs repeating the vice presidents, but I'm open to other opinions. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 23:16, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything wrong with the status quo. It ain't broke, so don't fix it. GoodDay (talk) 23:19, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with GoodDay, don't see a need to make all these changes for little, if any, benefit. - wolf 01:35, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On a side note. @Tol: in future, would you bring all your proposals to the talkpage & seek consensus here, rather then boldly make changes? It would save a lot of reverting. GoodDay (talk) 01:41, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GoodDay: If I don't think something will be contentious, I just do it. I really didn't think my changes would be reverted (I'll open a new section to discuss them). Tol (talk | contribs) @ 02:59, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The table should sort correctly now. I don't see what would be contentious about this. Reywas92^Talk 19:20, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Reywas92: Sorting doesn't work correctly with merged cells. Try sorting by number ascending, and you'll see what happens. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 19:22, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused, what the problem? Now it goes 1, 1, 2, 3, 3 but that's still correct sorting. Why don't we just make that column unsortable then? I agree that the benefit of sortability outweighs this. Reywas92^Talk 19:27, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It generates duplicates with any sorting method, which are most clear when you sort by number. My proposal above would have fixed this problem, at the cost of vice presidents not having their own cells. I think this would be preferable itself, because this is a list of presidents, not of vice presidents. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 19:43, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Best not to make such edits, without a consensus. GoodDay (talk) 19:24, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think Wikipedia:Be bold would disagree. It created a duplication problem (no errors and no incorrect information) that was only present if someone tried to sort the table, and was quickly reverted. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 19:41, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you both are going to persist in this? Then I would recommend either of you 'open' an RFC on the matter. GoodDay (talk) 19:45, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tol: you've got some nerve. You just claim that there isn't any opposition (Special:Diff/1055783291, when there clearly was (you even provided a permalink to prove the opposition. While I'm here, the disadvantage of merging vice-president cells/duplicate cells when sorting outweighs any benefits (which are negligable). SSSB (talk) 19:58, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I just read the edit-summary-in-question & must say, it really peeved me off. There most definitely is opposition to his proposals. GoodDay (talk) 20:03, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SSSB and @GoodDay: That was an entirely different edit; did you look at the diff? I added header scope, and did not reinstate the contested wording changes or sorting. If you read the section in question that I linked to in the edit summary, you would see that nobody made any arguments against adding header scope. Header scope helps with screen reader accessibility, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Data tables tutorial#Overview of basics. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 20:05, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is opposition to it. GoodDay (talk) 20:08, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GoodDay: Well, now you are opposing it, but (in #Recent edits & reversions) you said that it was only a "procedural revert". Nobody complained about the header scope, which is an entirely different change from sorting. @Kavyansh.Singh, who also commented, only commented that uncontroversial edits do not need consensus. Can you please take a look at the diff? What about adding semantic data for screen readers do you disagree with? Tol (talk | contribs) @ 20:11, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm heading out for a walk (be back in 'bout an hour), please follow my advice & open up an RFC for all list articles of US office holders. PS - I'm considering (in future) to open an AFD on all of them, if that's what it will take to end these 'persistent' attempts to change their content without consensus. GoodDay (talk) 20:18, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GoodDay: Alright; I'll start drafting it, though I don't know if it should really cover all lists of US office holders. I think it should cover three distinct topics that are all apparently contentious: sorting (probably the most), column scope (which I really though would be entirely uncontroversial), and column order. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 20:22, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At least have it cover both this article & the veep list article. GoodDay (talk) 21:30, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense; I'll expand it to cover that. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 21:46, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely agree that, instead of this constant back-n-forth, just post an RfC on the matter. You not only have a much better chance at a consensus one way or t'other, but there might even be alternatives presented that haven't been considered. (But Tol, make you are honest and forthright if you decide to write up an RfC, and don't misrepresent anyone's position, or anything that has previously occurred). Also, fwiw, while bold improvements are indeed encouraged in the P&G, I agree with GoodDay's request to suggest changes on the talk page first, if they involve a lot of changes. Not only it is it a shame to see all that work undone if consensus doesn't favor it after the fact, but it's also a pain in the ass to have to revert it all. But for simple straightforward edits, if you think it makes the article better, then go for it. (JMHO) - wolf 22:21, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Thewolfchild: Yep; I'm drafting one in my sandbox. I'd welcome any suggested changes (if it's reasonable and uncontroversial, feel free to just edit it; this is a wiki, after all). Your last sentence is why I'm so perplexed that GoodDay is reverting column scope improvements for screen reader accessibility, but it's apparently contested, so I'm including it in the RfC too. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 22:52, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can't claim there is no opposition to adding column scopes if nobody had mentioned column scopes at the time, that's why I raised it. I was confused because the thread you linked included opposition to all changes you proposed. So whilst it is true I didn't look at the diff (my apologies), your edit summary was misleading to the point of confusing me. SSSB (talk) 23:29, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I had mentioned scopes in the thread I linked to in the summary. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 00:08, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, since when are merged cells not compatible with sorting? Try sorting List of governors of Alabama, it works fine. It leads to some repeated cells when a merge had to be split, but that's a minor edge case that you're chasing. The benefits of the merged cells vastly outweighs the cost of an ugly sort; it still sorts. --Golbez (talk) 23:35, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think the point of view that I and a few others hold is that the repeated cells are an "ugly sort" and undesirable. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 00:10, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But is that ugliness worth losing the benefits? Of all the people who come to this page, only a few will sort, and even fewer will care that it's a little wonky, because they're looking for - presumably - just the president, or party. I'd say the aesthetic benefits of the merging for 99% of readers outweighs the concern of the aesthetic drawbacks for 1%. --Golbez (talk) 02:42, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Side note: If anyone proposes giving each president's & vice president's name (here & at the veep list article) a different colour? I'll cry. GoodDay (talk) 23:50, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GoodDay: You mean like this...? ;-) - wolf 01:29, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my... (I am generally fine with others editing my comments, but in this case I'd like you to self-revert so that those who read the section don't think I was seriously proposing that.) Tol (talk | contribs) @ 01:33, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As you did not self-revert, I have reverted your edit. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 19:01, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? So sorry I didn't 'snap-to' on such an important matter when you demanded it. - wolf 19:25, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's really not much of a problem; I just noticed you'd been active on this talk page since my comment and figured I should do it. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 20:04, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The table sample is from a failed proposal posted a month ago. If anyone was still paying it any attention, I doubt they would've taken the colors seriously. And that was the point, a joke to spread a little good cheer to a colleague. There's not enough of that around here afaic, instead there's just back-biting and petty squabbling. Meanwhile, had you been a little more patient, I'm sure I would've addressed your request before any real damage was done to the project. But what's done is done, so probably be best if you just let it go now. - wolf 23:59, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have. (Though, I didn't know that someone seriously proposed that...) Tol (talk | contribs) @ 01:55, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Recent edits & reversions

Please discuss further in the request for comment (mainly question 2). (Closed to avoid duplicate discussions.) Tol (talk | contribs) @ 19:52, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello @GoodDay and @Thewolfchild. I'd like to explain my recent edits:

This reverted my change to headers to improve accessibility for screen readers in compliance with the manual of style. The scope="col" specifies that it's a header for the column, not for the row.
This reverted my wording changes. I changed "is silent on the issue of" to "does not reference" because it is more direct and simple. I also removed "Greatly concerned about the capacity of political parties to destroy the fragile unity holding the nation together" because it was unnecessary and "fragile unity" is not neutral, and trimmed the surrounding text for conciseness. I also changed "presidents" to "presidencies" because the former was inaccurate (as the lead says, there have been 45 presidents in 46 presidencies).

Could you please explain why you reverted them? Thanks, Tol (talk | contribs) @ 03:05, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural revert, as you didn't get a consensus at this talkpage, for the change you made. GoodDay (talk) 03:08, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GoodDay: Wikipedia:Be bold: one doesn't need consensus for everything. Per Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle (which you quoted in this edit, and I therefore assume you have read), one should "Revert an edit if it is not an improvement" (emphasis added), and only then it should be discussed. The whole point of "be bold" is that editors should not have to seek consensus for everything — only when others disagree. Do you have any complaint about the actual content of the edits? Tol (talk | contribs) @ 03:15, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave it to the others here, to decide. PS - You don't have to ping me, as I've got this article on my watchlist. GoodDay (talk) 03:18, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tol: As I stated in my edit summary, I don't believe your changes were necessary or an improvement. Simply put, there was no need to gut that paragraph. The section was not overly long (or non-neutral) and did not need to be "trimmed". As for the change of "presidents" to "presidencies" up in the other section... meh, I'll leave it to others to weigh in on that and I'll accept a decision either way. Lastly, I watch this page as well, so pinging me here is also not necessary. - wolf 03:46, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in an article like this, Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle should be practiced, but not for reverting uncontroversial edits. I'll leave it for others to decide which edits are controversial and which are not. I just added template in the table, and have given appropriate explanation in the edit summary, so I don't think that has to be reverted. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:19, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Erm... what's the point of this comment? You already posted a lengthy edit summary in support of you uncontroversial, and minor, edit. Is this some kind of pre-emptive argument? I don't have a problem with your edit. But in general, if someone disagrees with an edit you've made, they're gonna revert it. Then it's up to both of you to ensure you have policy and/or consensus in your favor. - wolf 22:21, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I made an edit to a page, where almost all edits which were not discussed on the talk page are reverted (in maximum cases, the revert is rightfully done). But ... I think that my edit for uncontroversial enough to be made directly. The only purpose of the above comments is to inform the talk page of the edit. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:45, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned in the (above) discussion. Open up an RFC covering all list of American official articles. Attempting to force in such changes in this article or related articles, isn't the way to do it. GoodDay (talk) 19:56, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Column ordering

Please discuss further in the request for comment (mainly question 3, and also question 2). (Closed to avoid duplicate discussions.) Tol (talk | contribs) @ 19:52, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I think these tables look much better with the image and name on the far left – the person is the most important and should be listed first, then dates after that. Virtually every other list of presidents, prime ministers, etc. has the portrait and name on the left of the table, with term of office to the right. The term is also complimentary to the election year, so it would make sense to have those closer or adjacent to each other too. Reywas92^Talk 19:32, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. The article isn't broken, so stop trying to fix it. GoodDay (talk) 19:34, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Reywas. The focus of the row should be the first datapoint in it, not in the middle. --Golbez (talk) 19:37, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with Reywas92. The article may not be broken, but that's not an argument against improvement. This is improvement, not fixing. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 20:17, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. I don't really see this as a change for the better, or worse. I also don't see a point in making a change just for the sake of making a change. It's been fine the way it is for some time, so might as well leave it be. - wolf 22:21, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, can we also remember that there's the List of vice presidents of the United States article? If any changes are made to this article, then they should also be made to the other article. GoodDay (talk) 20:21, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, but that's no reason to deny changes to this one. --Golbez (talk) 20:25, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility is required. Making the table accessible does, however, reveal a failure of the article, in that now the row scoped cell is a name and a range of years. This betrays the fact that that cell should not be containing two different datapoints. Notwithstanding my opinion that we don't need the lifespan in this article, it's just bad form in terms of accessibility and presentation. I'll take this opportunity to again propose removing the lifespan. --Golbez (talk) 20:27, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Get a consensus for the changes you want made. Trying to force such changes, will only cause tension. GoodDay (talk) 21:12, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shrug; if you care so much to prevent accessibility improvements, you're welcome to it. I have better things to do than try to convince people that accessibility is good. --Golbez (talk) 21:52, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Golbez: Wait... wut? Why are you against making "accessibility improvements"...? - wolf 22:22, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some epic misreading there, mate. --Golbez (talk) 23:12, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, no... you said you said you had better things to do than help people with accessibility problems. It's right there "mate". - wolf 23:44, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Thewolfchild: hold up, okay, I'm going to enjoy this: So person A says "you can't make this accessible, not on my watch", person B says "ok you can have your article" and you think person B is the one worthy of complaint? I gave you the benefit of the doubt earlier, but you didn't latch on, so here, I'll spell it out as simple as I can: If GoodDay cares so much about making it so that we can't add accessibility tags to the article, then I'm not going to waste my time trying to convince them. You're more than welcome to, but I'm not in a mood for petty bullshit. So, to clarify, friend: I'm very much for accessibility improvements. That's why I made them, if you would be so kind as to check the page history. And GoodDay reverted them. So, I hope that explains. --Golbez (talk)

You "enjoy" lengthy, angry, profanity filled rants? I don't. I think we're done here. - wolf 15:32, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Uh huh. Whatever you need to feel better about yourself, friend. --Golbez (talk) 19:57, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, I made new friend. Anyway, I actually felt just fine before, but you seemed pretty upset... I hope you're better now. - wolf 23:41, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Thewolfchild: I think you've got it wrong. (This is long, but bear with me.) On 21 October, I initially reworded and trimmed the lead, and then added header scope (screen reader accessibility improvements) and added the "unsortable" class in case sortability was added later. The latter edit was reverted by Drdpw for "unnecessary markup", so I restored the header scope (for screen reader accessibility) but not the unsortable class (as it would do nothing unless the table were to be sortable), with an explanation of why scope is necessary in my edit summary. This partial restoration was also reverted by GoodDay, who cited BRD. At this point, I started #Recent edits & reversions above, where GoodDay said that reversion was a "procedural revert, as [I] didn't get a consensus at this talkpage". Nobody opposed the addition of header scope (screen reader accessibility) for three weeks, so I added it again on 17 November. GoodDay reverted again, again citing BRD and that it needs consensus. Golbez again restored header scope, and also changed the header column from the number to the name, saying that "no consensus [is] required for accessibility". GoodDay reverted this too, again saying that consensus is needed. That's where we are now. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 23:04, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to have an RFC on that, too. Why? because I'm getting a headache. GoodDay (talk) 23:07, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, just put in all the RfC. No sense going over it all again here. - wolf 23:44, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Now, as we are talking about a RfC, may I also suggest to add the fact that images here lack ALT text. While ALT text is not directly part of the FL criteria, it does help the screen readers, and I can think of no disadvantages of that addition. I wouldn't have brought this up if images has caption, but as they don't have caption, (rightfully) I think ALT text is necessary. Also, I might be a little nitpicky here, but the sources listed for the list doesn't discuss the exact dates of presidential tenure. Almost entire lead section and all footnotes are un-cited (And I know I'll be reverted if I add citation needed tags) – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 09:01, 18 November 2021‎ (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:CITELEAD, leads don't need inline citations - I believe (although I haven't checked thourghly) that they are all in the citations listed at the bottom of the page. SSSB (talk) 09:43, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SSSB – Leads don't need citations if, and only if all the content of the lead is cited in the prose. In this particular case, that isn't the case. Statements like "The officeholder leads the executive branch of the federal government and is the commander-in-chief of the United States Armed Forces.", "The first president, George Washington, won a unanimous vote of the Electoral College" are definitely not cited anywhere else in this article. So they do need inline citations. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:48, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's if and only if it is cited in the body. The table counts as part of the body. As I said I haven't checked thourghly, I could well have been mistaken when I said it was all cited.

Although, one of the citations in the table is this one. If you then procede to click on Washington, you will find that it says he was unanimously voted president. Personally, I think this is good enough to claim it is verfifed. If you disagree, you are more than welcome to add an in-line citation to that explicit page. SSSB (talk) 09:59, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, George Washington is linked to the bio article about him, which I believe supports the info here. The info there is (and of course has to be) sourced. For list articles, this is widely practiced. - wolf 20:29, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Thewolfchild – Well, that way of citing is wrong. Linking to a Wikipedia article, and using its content as a source for backing up claims is discouraged per WP:CIRCULAR. Not saying that the information is wrong, but it is indeed un-cited. One of the main purpose of citing sources is verifiability. What we currently are doing is asking the reader to go to another page, find the same information there, and then check the source for verifying. In my opinion, it being widely practiced doesn't make it right. So currently, there is a problem, and it needs to be resolved. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:40, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My comment was not an endorsement, just an observation. It seems many see lists as a directory of sorts for the subjects listed (and their articles), and so when those subject's entries have their own linked articles, then often accompanying cites aren't present or even requested. I'm not saying it's right (but I'm not necessarily saying it's wrong either), just pointing out a situation that exists. If you want to go on a mission to add sources to every entry, and every item accompanying said entry, on every list on WP... go for it. - wolf 19:50, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see ... I am already on a sort of mission trying to add citations and raise these 51 lists to FL status. Time permitting, will do more. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:46, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Like Thewolfchild posted. It's common for "list of..." articles to not have sources, as their entries are already linked to sourced articles. GoodDay (talk) 22:23, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Stay or go?

I'm really wondering if maybe all these list articles across Wikipedia, should be deleted as trivia articles. There is a growing movement to delete such articles, as I've been to some of the recent AfDs of such articles, which resulted in 'delete'. GoodDay (talk) 15:32, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not all, but yeah, we have strong momentum to delete trivia lists. We can expect that "List of presidents/vice presidents/prime minsters of ABC" will surely won't be deleted, but there are strong chances that lists like "List of presidents of ABC by age", "by length of tenure", "by death date", etc. would be at-least nominated for deletion. And I don't expect these trivia lists to be in printed encyclopedia. – — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kavyansh.Singh (talk • contribs) 15:44, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed; I really don't think that those lists would be particularly helpful. If those data are helpful, then they should be included in the main list and the main list should be made sortable. I'd welcome the addition of alt text. I don't know what should be put in it — I'd think that it would be obvious that the picture is of the president in that row — but perhaps it could include date and medium (such as "2004 photograph of someone, wearing something"). Tol (talk | contribs) @ 18:57, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is no hard and fast guideline. Anything like "Photographic portrait of Bill Clinton, pictured in 1993", "Portrait of George Washington, painted in ...." would work. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:04, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GoodDay: Delete "all" list articles? Sorry, but no. I agree that trivial and or redundant lists should be considered for deletion, (only after merging has been considered), but many list articles have encyclopaedic value. Pages like List of presidents of the U.S. with facial hair... (really?) That could be considered "trivial". And as for redundant well, years ago, after an effort to clean up USN pages, I commented (multiple times) about the needless, duplicate lists we have there, but there are still numerous pages all listing the same thing. While routine house-cleaning of superfluous content is helpful, I'd hate to see exclusionists go on a full blown crusade against all lists. (jmho) - wolf 19:50, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot of lists within this bar ↓

Lists related to presidents and vice presidents of the United States

Presidents

Professional career	Approval rating Assassination attempts and plots Control of Congress Desks Doctrines Executive orders Historical rankings Impeachment efforts International trips Judicial appointments Military service rank Official vehicles Other offices held Pardons Post-presidency campaigns Previous experience Time in office Vetoes
Personal life	Age Ancestry Bibliographies autobiographies Burial places Coats of arms Death in office Education Facial hair Families first ladies children Firsts Freemasons Home state Left-handed Multilingualism Net worth Nicknames Pets Religious affiliation Residences Scouts Slave owners Vacations
Depictions and honors	Actor portrayals fictional Currency Educational institutions Libraries Memorials in other countries Military vessels Portraits Sculptures U.S. counties U.S. postage stamps

Vice presidents

Succession

Elections

Candidates

Political affiliation	Democratic Democratic-Republican Federalist Green Libertarian National Republican / Whig Republican Third party / independent
Distinctions	African American Campaign slogans Female Firsts Height Lost their home state Number of votes received in primaries Received at least one electoral vote Unsuccessful major party presidential candidates Unsuccessful major party vice presidential candidates

that requires deletions. GoodDay (talk) 19:54, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not all of those lists should be deleted. I'm sure some of them could go, while others could be merged, (and some renamed as articles instead of lists, such as this one), but many should likely be kept. (imo) - wolf 00:19, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Presidents of the United States with facial hair (4th nomination) (and that's actually the fifth AfD because it was renamed). Tol (talk | contribs) @ 20:09, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. Hopefully someone will get the numbering right if it's AfD'd again. - wolf 00:19, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Thewolfchild: I've created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Presidents of the United States with facial hair (5th nomination) (which redirects to the "4th nom" page, which is actually the fifth) to hopefully fix this. Somehow, the "3rd nom" was in 2014 but the "2nd nom" was in 2016... Tol (talk | contribs) @ 01:48, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-RfC discussion

The request for comment has started. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 19:52, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello! I've been drafting an RfC in my sandbox, and I plan to start it in the next few days. Currently, it covers three topics: sortability, scope metadata, and column order. Please let me know (or edit the draft itself) if you would like to change anything or add another topic to cover. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 19:54, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I posted at the talkpage of your sandbox. I hope you'll include the status quo option. GoodDay (talk) 20:00, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved that below — sorry about that; I apparently don't watch my sandbox. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 20:05, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Will the proposed-RFC, also cover the List of vice presidents of the United States article? GoodDay (talk) 16:43, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GoodDay: I'm currently working on expanding it to cover that. Because all three questions apply to both lists, it shouldn't be too hard. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 00:05, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. GoodDay (talk) 00:06, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Status quo

The request for comment has started. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 19:52, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Moved from User talk:Tol/sandbox

I assume, you'll be including the option of not changing anything (i.e. status quo) in the two articles? Can't have all the options being pro-change, otherwise it'll look biased. GoodDay (talk) 00:27, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GoodDay: Yes. Question 1 (sortability) has three options; the first (A) is the status quo. Question 2 is a yes or no question; no is the status quo. Question 3 is more open-ended and does not have proscribed options, but the summary includes the status quo. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 20:06, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the wording in the options does sometimes lead to "status quo", but I think the RfC would be appear more balanced if you added a fourth option in the opening, that clearly states maintaining status quo is also a choice onto itself, and not just a possible outcome of one of the other three. That way, the pros and cons of keeping the table "as is" can be discussed on it's own. (imho) - wolf 09:20, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this would make sense, as the RfC would consist of three independent questions which should be discussed independently. The status quo is presented in each of the three sections, which are packaged together in a single RfC not because they are related but for convenience. Any desire to maintain the status quo, like any desire to implement a change, should be justified in each section with appropriate reasoning for that section — reasoning to keep the status quo for the sake of keeping it or changing things for the sake of changing them is flawed. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 23:51, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It makes sense if you want to present a balanced RfC. You can just as easily have four independent questions to discuss. The table is stable as is, and has been for some time, with the support of multiple editors. Therefore, "status quo" should be presented as a clear, viable, and separate option, on it's own, and not just one that people might eventually navigate to via one of the "change this or that" options. (Again, JMHO) - wolf 05:21, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for comment: sortability, scope metadata, order

This request for comment covers three distinct unresolved questions relating to List of presidents of the United States and List of vice presidents of the United States:

Should the lists be sortable? (section)
Should the lists' headers contain scope metadata? (section)
How should the columns be ordered? (section)

A brief summary of related edits to the list of presidents from 21 October to 17 November, which led to discussion and this RfC, can be found here.

Some recent discussions on these issues are:

§ Sortability (mainly question 1, but also some of question 2)
§ Recent edits & reversions (question 2, and some other issues)
§ Column ordering (question 3, and some question 2)

Tol (talk | contribs) @ 19:52, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1: Sortability

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Editors against adding sorting to the list mentioned two major issues with the presented options: items in list B would break after sorted, which could hamper reading, while list C would add unnecessary elements. Those in favor noted that we would benefit our readers by letting them reorganize the list in the way they prefer, while also noting that list B would only appear broken after it was sorted. Although !votes are somewhat split, the discussion has shown that most participants are in favor of having some manner of sortability. Among those two options, there appears to be a rough consensus that, if a sortable list is to be added, it should be the one considered by most as more aesthetically pleasing and practical, as such, I see a rough consensus to implement option B. (non-admin closure) Isabelle ^🔔 00:31, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The lists currently have elections, parties, and vice presidents (for the list of presidents) or presidents (for the list of vice presidents) in their own cells (example A). A consequence of this is that, if the lists were to be made sortable without any other modifications (example B), sorting the lists would generate duplicate rows for merged cells. An alternative option is to ensure there is only one row for each president or vice president (example C), which would make the lists sortable without duplication, but would cause the entries for the two vice presidents (George Clinton and John C. Calhoun) who each served under two presidents to be listed in the rows for both presidents in the list of presidents (and vice versa for the list of vice presidents). Which of these three options should the lists be?

A: Unsorted (status quo), with no modifications
Sorted:
- B: without other modifications
- C: with one row per president

Examples

Example A: Unsorted

Presidency		Name (Birth–Death)		Election	Vice President
1	April 30, 1789 – March 4, 1797	George Washington (1732–1799)	Unaffiliated	1788–89	John Adams
1	April 30, 1789 – March 4, 1797	George Washington (1732–1799)	Unaffiliated	1792	John Adams
2	March 4, 1797 – March 4, 1801	John Adams (1735–1826)	Federalist	1796	Thomas Jefferson
3	March 4, 1801 – March 4, 1809	Thomas Jefferson (1743–1826)	Democratic-Republican	1800	Aaron Burr
3	March 4, 1801 – March 4, 1809	Thomas Jefferson (1743–1826)	Democratic-Republican	1804	George Clinton
4	March 4, 1809 – March 4, 1817	James Madison (1751–1836)	Democratic-Republican	1808	George Clinton
				1808	Vacant after Apr. 20, 1812
				1812	Elbridge Gerry
				1812	Vacant after Nov. 23, 1814
5	March 4, 1817 – March 4, 1825	James Monroe (1758–1831)	Democratic-Republican	1816	Daniel D. Tompkins
5	March 4, 1817 – March 4, 1825	James Monroe (1758–1831)	Democratic-Republican	1820	Daniel D. Tompkins
6	March 4, 1825 – March 4, 1829	John Quincy Adams (1767–1848)	Democratic-Republican	1824	John C. Calhoun
6	March 4, 1825 – March 4, 1829	John Quincy Adams (1767–1848)	National Republican	1824
7	March 4, 1829 – March 4, 1837	Andrew Jackson (1767–1845)	Democratic	1828
				1828	Vacant after Dec. 28, 1832
				1832	Martin Van Buren

Example B: Sorted, without other modifications

Presidency		Name (Birth–Death)		Election	Vice President
1	April 30, 1789 – March 4, 1797	George Washington (1732–1799)	Unaffiliated	1788–89	John Adams
1	April 30, 1789 – March 4, 1797	George Washington (1732–1799)	Unaffiliated	1792	John Adams
2	March 4, 1797 – March 4, 1801	John Adams (1735–1826)	Federalist	1796	Thomas Jefferson
3	March 4, 1801 – March 4, 1809	Thomas Jefferson (1743–1826)	Democratic-Republican	1800	Aaron Burr
3	March 4, 1801 – March 4, 1809	Thomas Jefferson (1743–1826)	Democratic-Republican	1804	George Clinton
4	March 4, 1809 – March 4, 1817	James Madison (1751–1836)	Democratic-Republican	1808	George Clinton
				1808	Vacant after Apr. 20, 1812
				1812	Elbridge Gerry
				1812	Vacant after Nov. 23, 1814
5	March 4, 1817 – March 4, 1825	James Monroe (1758–1831)	Democratic-Republican	1816	Daniel D. Tompkins
5	March 4, 1817 – March 4, 1825	James Monroe (1758–1831)	Democratic-Republican	1820	Daniel D. Tompkins
6	March 4, 1825 – March 4, 1829	John Quincy Adams (1767–1848)	Democratic-Republican	1824	John C. Calhoun
6	March 4, 1825 – March 4, 1829	John Quincy Adams (1767–1848)	National Republican	1824
7	March 4, 1829 – March 4, 1837	Andrew Jackson (1767–1845)	Democratic	1828
				1828	Vacant after Dec. 28, 1832
				1832	Martin Van Buren

Example C: Sorted, with one row per president

Presidency		Name (Birth–Death)		Election(s)	Vice President(s)
1	April 30, 1789 – March 4, 1797	George Washington (1732–1799)	Unaffiliated	1788–89 1792	John Adams
2	March 4, 1797 – March 4, 1801	John Adams (1735–1826)	Federalist	1796	Thomas Jefferson
3	March 4, 1801 – March 4, 1809	Thomas Jefferson (1743–1826)	Democratic-Republican	1800 1804	Aaron Burr^[a] George Clinton^[b]
4	March 4, 1809 – March 4, 1817	James Madison (1751–1836)	Democratic-Republican	1808 1812	George Clinton^[c] Vacant^[d] Elbridge Gerry^[e] Vacant^[f]
5	March 4, 1817 – March 4, 1825	James Monroe (1758–1831)	Democratic-Republican	1816 1820	Daniel D. Tompkins
6	March 4, 1825 – March 4, 1829	John Quincy Adams (1767–1848)	Democratic-Republican^[g] National Republican	1824	John C. Calhoun
7	March 4, 1829 – March 4, 1837	Andrew Jackson (1767–1845)	Democratic	1828 1832	John C. Calhoun^[h] Vacant^[i] Martin Van Buren^[j]

Notes

^ March 4, 1801 (elected in 1800) – March 4, 1805
^ March 4, 1805 (elected in 1804) – March 4, 1809
^ March 4, 1809 (reelected in 1808) – April 20, 1812 (died)
^ April 20, 1812 – March 4, 1813
^ March 4, 1813 (elected in 1812) – November 23, 1814 (died)
^ November 23, 1814 – March 4, 1817
^ Early during Adams' term the Democratic-Republican Party dissolved; his allies in Congress and at the state-level were referred to as "Adams' Men" during the Adams presidency. When Andrew Jackson became president in 1829, this group became the "Anti-Jackson" opposition, and organized themselves as the National Republican Party.
^ March 4, 1829 (reelected in 1828) – December 28, 1832 (died)
^ December 28, 1832 – March 4, 1833
^ March 4, 1833 (elected in 1832) – March 4, 1837

Discussion 1

C (preferably), then A. Option C is my top choice because it can make the list sortable without the problems with B. Associated officeholders (VPs in the list of presidents and vice versa) aren't the topic of the list, and don't need merged cells. One row per president (on the list of presidents) or VP (on the list of VPs) makes sense and doesn't come with the same problems in sorting that option B does. As for why it should be sortable, sorting by name or party would be helpful to find a president without knowing its number, and the featured list criteria also say that lists in tables should be sortable where helpful. In this case, it is helpful, because it lets a reader easily sort the table into a list of (vice) presidents in alphabetical order or by party. I prefer option A over option B, because sorting a table with merged cells produces duplicate rows. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 20:19, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
B. Works fine. We can easily provide sorting, and for the very few people whom that is useful for, we can be fine with it being a little ugly. I mean, I see the options this way: A is acceptable aesthetically but lacks sorting; B is acceptable aesthetically for 99% of users, and a little wonky for the 1% who want to sort; C is unacceptable aesthetically for 100% of users, and still wonky for that 1% who want to sort. --Golbez (talk) 20:44, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
C is aesthetically acceptable for me. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 20:48, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A - maintain status quo. It ain't broke, so don't fix it. GoodDay (talk) 20:50, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
B followed by C I like sortability, and think veeps should be a sortable field. Having veeps on multiple rows if they served multiple presidents and presidents having multiple rows if they had more than one veep (or a veep and a vacancy) is fine with me. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:54, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Bthen C. Tables should obviously be sortable whenever possible. All columns should be sortable and the duplicate rows aren't a major problem. Reywas92^Talk 21:15, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
B then C per Reywas92 and WP:READER. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:32, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
C is highly preferable, and then probably B. We don't lose much (if anything) by consolidating presidencies into single rows. This is, after all, a list of presidents. It is not a list of presidential terms. We can have the vice presidents, political parties, and election years in a single cell per column associated with their respective presidents. AlexEng^(TALK) 21:55, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A - since both B and C look awful. If there was another option, I would consider it as I'm usually in favour of sorting, but if the only choices are either; adding a bunch of duplicate rows & cells or, lumping a bunch of VPs and "vacancies" together into single cells and then adding a lonnng list of notes to clarify... I'll stick with the status quo. - wolf 23:43, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why do we actually need a list of vacancies at all? Who cares? The column title is "Vice President" and it should include a list of vice presidents, not the specific timelines for their vice presidency. It's offtopic cruft for this article and belongs elsewhere. Having a vice president column is borderline appropriate in the first place. Why not list Speaker of the House and Chief Justice while we're at it? AlexEng^(TALK) 06:39, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Because if we're including their vice presidents, we also need to point out when there wasn't a vice president. And the others make no sense for several reasons, the main of which being that they aren't in the executive, and the VP is [at least now] elected on the same ticket. --Golbez (talk) 17:05, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Golbez: why do we need to point out when there wasn't a vice president? We only need to name all of the vice presidents that served under a particular president. VP1, VP2 is fine. vacancy (18xx-18xx), VP1 (18xx-18xx), vacancy (18xx-18xx), VP2 (18xx-18xx) is entirely unnecessary. AlexEng^(TALK) 06:14, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If I may. So we don't mislead readers into thinking that Vice President William R. King served his entire four-year term (1853–57), or that Vice President Thomas A. Hendricks served his entire four-year term (1885–89), for example. GoodDay (talk) 06:41, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not reading that implication from the mere inclusion of a name. If you include any dates whatsoever in that column, then the reader may get the wrong idea. If you include only names, it gives a truthful accounting of the vice president(s) that served under the named president. AlexEng^(TALK) 09:08, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't show/mention the vacancies, then you're leaving out important information. GoodDay (talk) 12:47, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A is fine by me. Why would someone want a different sort on these sequential presidents? I don't see the obviousness implied in the argument "Tables should obviously be sortable whenever possible", so please explain. Dicklyon (talk) 01:33, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Dicklyon: Well, my argument, at the very least, is that it's just nice. Like I said in my comment/!vote above, "the featured list criteria also say that lists in tables should be sortable where helpful. In this case, it is helpful, because it lets a reader easily sort the table into a list of (vice) presidents in alphabetical order or by party." Tol (talk | contribs) @ 02:22, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't said a work about how or why "sortable where helpful" would apply here. And "it's just nice" is just nothing. Dicklyon (talk) 01:43, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Dicklyon: I think it would be helpful because then we could have a list of (vice) presidents by name (alphabetical order) or by political party without creating a new list for that. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 19:22, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A or C, the problem with B is that sorting immediatly breaks the table, we now have four Madisons. It makes it significantly harder to interpret the table, and I don't see how being able to sort by vice-presidents is advantagous, if people want to sort vice-presidents, go to that list. I would even argue that vice presidents shouldn't be on this list. The problem with C is that it looks a little WP:SEAOFBLUEy on mobile (I think). I also see little advantage with sorting, and am therefore happy to not have it as an option. SSSB (talk) 09:23, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
B or C, with little preference between the two. The sortability is handy, and there are a number of use-cases where it might be helpful to look at each president by political party, or view presidents that had the same vice president and the like. I don't mind that B can make the list ugly, but I respect that it can bother others, so either sortable is fine with me. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:00, 10 December 2021 (UTC) (Summoned by bot)[reply]
C, then A: I am a fan of sortability in most tables since it gives the reader the opportunity to look for information in whatever way they see fit, but as SSSB mentioned above, the B option makes the table unusable by completely reorganizing the information in it when one sorts by vice-president. PraiseVivec (talk) 12:41, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
B or (less preferably) C - Sortability is good. I don't see a need to eliminate duplication, and I think it would be the lesser option, but I'm not strictly opposed to doing so either. Fieari (talk) 03:16, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
B then C. I thinkk sortability would be a good thing, I agree with most others who gave reasons for B&C Signed, I Am Chaos (talk) 17:49, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
B then C. They're all aesthetically fine, but B has the best sortability and C the next-best. The duplicate rows are alright, and the first thing to compromise on when not all best cases can be satisfied (as here). — Bilorv (talk) 22:37, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
C, Sortability is a useful functon for the user. Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:23, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A is my preference. The only columns where sorting might be useful are the name column and the party affiliation column, and I see little value in having the presidents sorted by either (And I would note that the POTUS article has a table that divides the presidents by party affiliation). Then there's the reality that when one uses the sorting function on a complex table such as this one the result is an aesthetic mess. Drdpw (talk) 00:08, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A. The current layout is excellent, providing a lot of information to the reader without much effort on their part, so I would oppose efforts to alter this, which omits C. As the list would be partially broken when sorted under B, I oppose that as well. BilledMammal (talk) 15:32, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Post-close discussion

@Isabelle Belato:, you see a "rough consensus for option B? The following !votes were as follows;

C, A
B
A
B, C
B, C
C
A
A
A, C
B, C
C, A
B, C
B, C
B, C
C
A
A

Was it the corresponding comments that formed the basis of this consensus? - wolf 05:35, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Isabelle Belato: while I do see a rough consensus for "B" over "C" I do not see a consensus for making the table sortable. Please elaborate on how you came to the conclusion that one developed; thanks. Drdpw (talk) 11:54, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Thewolfchild and Drdpw: As I've tried to elaborate in the closing statement, my reading of the discussion was that there is a consensus that the list would be improved by having the option to sort the columns. Among the options surveyed, B seemed to have the most support, even if by not much, mostly due to the fact the list remains the same if you do not sort it. Although I always take into account the amount of votes for each option, I also try to give weight to the discussion users are having. I can see the point that further discussion might be needed to see if there is a better way to sort the list. Isabelle ^🔔 12:59, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned hours earlier. I tested the 'newly applied' sortability tool & all it does is mess up the order of presidents & vice presidents, sometimes duplicating them. GoodDay (talk) 21:08, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, using the sorting function alters the ordering, from order in office to order by last name, or party name as the case may be. And, yes, using the sorting function creates duplicates of persons. Such complications are inevitable, and must be lived-with now that the tables are sortable. Drdpw (talk) 23:01, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's been over 3 months and I still don't see how having the table sort into a visual-trainwreck with multiples of the same entries, along with mulitple copies of the same images, is in anyway an improvement. And all due to a "consensus" based on: "B seemed to have the most support, even if by not much" (?) and "I can see the point that further discussion might be needed to see if there is a better way to sort the list". Perhaps it's time to re-visit the issue, re-evaluate this consensus, and have that discussion "to see if there is a better way to sort the list", or if the list really should be sorted at all. - wolf 16:40, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We'd be better off undoing the mess that was implemented, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 17:38, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's basically the point of my comment; that the evaluation of the discussion was incorrect, that there was not a clear consensus to add the sort feature, and all that notwithstanding, the addition of the sort feature was not an improvement, but just the opposite. We should now look at how to best proceed to address this issue. This would be the "further discussion" that was suggested by the closer. - wolf 20:14, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have always been a fan of table sorting. I find that feature very helpful, but honestly, I don't think it should be present in this list. I mean, why would anyone want to see 4 Nixons when he served just 1.5 terms (roughly), and how does it help the reader? The VP column does break the sorting. What impression does it send to the reader when we have 4 Nixons and 4 Franklin D. Roosevelts? But this is my opinion, not the community consensus. But irrespective of the votes, reading the discussion, I more or less find "no consensus". But I am really not sure how to address that 4 months after closing of the discussion ... – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:05, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's kinda' the point. I raised the issue at the time of close and while the closer even acknowledged a problem, they left it that, meaning it was up to someone else to take it to close review if they wanted to challenge it. But now that time has passed, the sorting can be boldly removed as consensus can change. If no one opposes it now, I think the sorting should go. - wolf 13:40, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't we put the VPs for each president in a shared cell? I know this leads to repeats where the VPs are repeated in they are retained from one administration to another, but as VPs are explicitly chosen by the president (and not voted for seperatly) this seems like less of an issue. Then the limited benefit of sorting is retained, without the repeating of presidents. SSSB (talk) 17:17, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean something similar to Example B in the above RfC? Its indeed better, but it would be a bit tricky to indicate a vacancy in the office and we'll end up having lot of footnotes. –— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kavyansh.Singh (talk • contribs) 18:03, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean option C. Yeah, like that. (Didn't even spot it there). I think we can cut down on the notes. If the notes are just dates, then we can go ((nowrap|NameMar 4, 1800-Oct 17, 1803; died)) ((nowrap|VacantOct 17, 1803-Mar 4,)) This effectively negates the need for any notes at all. If the table is too wide we can put the dates and VP on separate lines. SSSB (talk) 19:46, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if we can agree that the process was flawed, and now the current sorting is flawed, how about we start by removing that sorting, and meanwhile you guys can try to find a way to build a better mousetrap. Sound good? - wolf 02:50, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just tried to find out how featured lists of other head of nations address this issue:

List of heads of state of the Central African Republic — unsorted and has merged cells
List of current Canadian first ministers — sorted but does not has merged cells
List of prime ministers of Canada — unsorted and has merged cells
List of prime ministers of India — unsorted and has merged cells
List of presidents of India — unsorted and has few merged cells (also has a very innovative idea)
List of presidents of Pakistan — unsorted and has few merged cells
List of prime ministers of Pakistan — sorted but does not has merged cells
List of vice presidents of the Philippines — unsorted and has merged cells
List of prime ministers of Sri Lanka — unsorted and has merged cells
General Secretary of the Communist Party of Vietnam — unsorted and has few merged cells
List of chancellors of Austria — unsorted and has few merged cells
List of chancellors of Germany — unsorted and has merged cells
List of prime ministers of Italy — unsorted and has merged cells
List of prime ministers of Luxembourg — unsorted and has merged cells
List of heads of government of Russia — unsorted and has merged cells
First Deputy Premier of the Soviet Union — unsorted and has merged cells
General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union — unsorted and has merged cells
General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union — unsorted and has few merged cells
List of leaders of the Soviet Union — unsorted and has merged cells
Premier of the Soviet Union — unsorted but does not has merged cells
List of members of the Swiss Federal Council — sorted but does not has merged cells
List of prime ministers of the United Kingdom — unsorted and has merged cells

Here, it is very well evident that other lists which have merged cells are unsorted (does not has the sorting feature). And yet, all these lists are deemed by the community "to be the best lists on the English Wikipedia".[38] I'm afraid, this is something which was not considered during the initial RfC. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:50, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have this alternative table, which have the visual appeal of A, sortability of B, and format similar to C. The only issue here is that we cannot add colors for presidents who has two different political affiliations during their presidency (unless there is a way to add two colors in a cell. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:15, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative table

Presidents

List of presidents of the United States from 1789 – till date.
#^[a]	Name (Birth–Death)	Term^[1]		Election	Vice President^[3]
1	George Washington (1732–1799) ^[4]	April 30, 1789 – March 4, 1797	Unaffiliated	1788–89 1792	John Adams^[c]
2	John Adams (1735–1826) ^[6]	March 4, 1797 – March 4, 1801	Federalist	1796	Thomas Jefferson^[d]
3	Thomas Jefferson (1743–1826) ^[8]	March 4, 1801 – March 4, 1809	Democratic- Republican	1800 1804	Aaron Burr George Clinton^[e]
4	James Madison (1751–1836) ^[9]	March 4, 1809 – March 4, 1817	Democratic- Republican	1808 1812	George Clinton Vacant after Apr. 20, 1812 Elbridge Gerry^[e] Vacant after Nov. 23, 1814
5	James Monroe (1758–1831) ^[10]	March 4, 1817 – March 4, 1825	Democratic- Republican	1816 1820	Daniel D. Tompkins
6	John Quincy Adams (1767–1848) ^[11]	March 4, 1825 – March 4, 1829	Democratic- Republican^[f] National Republican	1824	John C. Calhoun^[g]^[h]

Notes, references, and sources

Notes

Extended content

^ Presidents are numbered according to uninterrupted periods served by the same person. For example, George Washington served two consecutive terms and is counted as the first president (not the first and second). Upon the resignation of 37th president, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford became the 38th president even though he simply served out the remainder of Nixon's second term and was never elected to the presidency in his own right. Grover Cleveland was both the 22nd president and the 24th president because his two terms were not consecutive. A vice president who temporarily becomes acting president under the Twenty-fifth Amendment to the Constitution is not counted, because the president remains in office during such a period.
^ Reflects the president's political party at the start of their presidency. Changes during their time in office are noted. Also reflects the vice president's political party unless otherwise noted beside the individual's name.
^ Political parties had not been anticipated when the Constitution was drafted, nor did they exist at the time of the first presidential election in 1788–89. When they did develop, during Washington's first term, Adams joined the faction that became the Federalist Party. The elections of 1792 were the first ones in the United States that were contested on anything resembling a partisan basis.^[5]
^ The 1796 presidential election was the first contested American presidential election and the only one in which a president and vice president were elected from opposing political parties. Federalist John Adams was elected president, and Jefferson of the Democratic-Republicans was elected vice president.^[7]
^ ^a ^b Died in office of natural causes.
^ Early during Adams' term the Democratic-Republican Party dissolved; his allies in Congress and at the state-level were referred to as "Adams' Men" during the Adams presidency. When Andrew Jackson became president in 1829, this group became the "Anti-Jackson" opposition, and organized themselves as the National Republican Party.^[12]
^ John Calhoun, formerly a Democratic-Republican, founded the Nullifier Party in 1828 to oppose the Tariff of 1828 and advance the cause of states' rights, but was brought on as Andrew Jackson's running mate in the 1828 presidential election in an effort to broaden the democratic coalition led by Jackson.^[13]
^ Resigned from office

References

Extended content

^ LOC; whitehouse.gov (a).
^ Guide to U.S. Elections (2010), pp. 257–258.
^ LOC.
^ McDonald (2000).
^ Guide to U.S. Elections (2010), pp. 197, 272; Nardulli (1992), p. 179.
^ Pencak (2000).
^ Guide to U.S. Elections (2010), p. 274.
^ Peterson (2000).
^ Banning (2000).
^ Ammon (2000).
^ Hargreaves (2000).
^ Guide to U.S. Elections (2010), p. 228; Goldman (1951), p. 159.
^ Guide to U.S. Elections (2010), p. 892; Houpt (2010), pp. 26, 280.

Sources

Extended content

General

Guide to U.S. Elections. SAGE Publications. 2010. ISBN 978-1-60426-536-1.
"Chronological List of Presidents, First Ladies, and Vice Presidents of the United States". Library of Congress. Retrieved February 20, 2020.((cite web)): CS1 maint: url-status (link)
"Presidents". whitehouse.gov. Retrieved May 14, 2022.((cite web)): CS1 maint: url-status (link)

Expert studies

Abbott, Philip (2005). "Accidental Presidents: Death, Assassination, Resignation, and Democratic Succession". Presidential Studies Quarterly. 35 (4). Wiley: 627–645. doi:10.1111/j.1741-5705.2005.00269.x. ISSN 0360-4918. JSTOR 27552721.
Abbott, Philip (2013). "The First Bad President?: John Tyler". Bad Presidents. The Evolving American Presidency Series. Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 23–42. doi:10.1057/9781137306593_2. ISBN 978-1-349-45513-3.
Cash, Jordan T. (2018). "The Isolated Presidency: John Tyler and Unilateral Presidential Power". American Political Thought. 7: 26–56. doi:10.1086/695644. S2CID 158133180 – via ResearchGate.
Dinnerstein, Leonard (1962). "The Accession of John Tyler to the Presidency". Virginia Magazine of History and Biography. 70 (4). Virginia Historical Society: 447–458. JSTOR 4246893.
Fairman, Charles (1949). "The President as Commander-in-Chief". The Journal of Politics. 11 (1). University of Chicago Press: 145–170. doi:10.2307/2126503. JSTOR 2126503. S2CID 155029239.
Gilbert, Robert E. (2003). "'The Contemporary Presidency': The Twenty-Fifth Amendment: Recommendations and Deliberations of the Working Group on Presidential Disability". Presidential Studies Quarterly. 33 (4): 877–888. doi:10.1046/j.0360-4918.2003.00088.x. JSTOR 27552541.
Goldman, Ralph Morris (1951). Party Chairmen and Party Faction, 1789–1900: A Theory of Executive Responsibility and Conflict Resolution. University of Chicago Press.
Houpt, David W. (2010). "Securing a Legacy". The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography. Vol. 118, no. 1. Virginia Historical Society. ProQuest 195929787.
Kassop, Nancy (2005). "'The Law': When Law and Politics Collide: Presidents and the Use of the Twenty-Fifth Amendment". Presidential Studies Quarterly. 35 (1). Wiley: 147–165. doi:10.1111/j.1741-5705.2004.00240.x. JSTOR 27552664.
Matuz, Roger (2001). Complete American Presidents Sourcebook. UXL. ISBN 978-0-7876-4842-8. LCCN 00056794. OL 24722725M.
McHugh, Jane; Mackowiak, Philip A. (2014). "Death in the White House: President William Henry Harrison's Atypical Pneumonia". Clinical Infectious Diseases. 59 (7). Oxford University Press: 990–995. doi:10.1093/cid/ciu470. JSTOR 24032403. PMID 24962997.
Nardulli, Peter F., ed. (1992). The Constitution and American Political Development: An Institutional Perspective. University of Illinois Press. ISBN 978-0-252-01787-2.
Rossiter, Clinton (1962). "Powers of the United States President and Congress". Pakistan Horizon. 15 (2). Pakistan Institute of International Affairs: 85–92. JSTOR 41392704.
Schaller, Thomas F.; Williams, Thomas W. (2003). "'The Contemporary Presidency': Postpresidential Influence in the Postmodern Era". Presidential Studies Quarterly. 33 (1). Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies: 188–200. JSTOR 27552468.
Seasongood, Murray (1932). "George Washington and Political Parties". The American Scholar. Vol. 1, no. 3. Phi Beta Kappa.
Shugart, Matthew S. (2004). "Elections': The American Process of Selecting a President: A Comparative Perspective". Presidential Studies Quarterly. 34 (3). Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies: 632–655. doi:10.1111/j.1741-5705.2004.00216.x. JSTOR 27552617.
Skau, George H. (1974). "Franklin D. Roosevelt and the Expansion of Presidential Power". Current History. 66 (394). University of California Press: 246–275. doi:10.1525/curh.1974.66.394.246. JSTOR 45313079. S2CID 248394036.
Willis, Paul G.; Willis, George L. (1952). "The Politics of the Twenty-Second Amendment". Western Political Science Association. 5 (3). University of Utah Press: 469–482. doi:10.2307/442606. JSTOR 442606.

Presidential biographies

Ambrose, Stephen E. (2000) [1999]. "Eisenhower, Dwight David". American National Biography. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/anb/9780198606697.article.0700094. ISBN 978-0-19-860669-7. Retrieved May 14, 2022.((cite web)): CS1 maint: url-status (link)
Ambrosius, Lloyd E. (2000) [1999]. "Wilson, Woodrow". American National Biography. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/anb/9780198606697.article.0600726. ISBN 978-0-19-860669-7. Retrieved May 14, 2022.((cite web)): CS1 maint: url-status (link)
Ammon, Harry (2000) [1999]. "Monroe, James". American National Biography. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/anb/9780198606697.article.0300338. ISBN 978-0-19-860669-7. Retrieved May 14, 2022.((cite web)): CS1 maint: url-status (link)
Anbinder, Tyler (2000) [1999]. "Fillmore, Millard". American National Biography. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/anb/9780198606697.article.0400374. ISBN 978-0-19-860669-7. Retrieved May 14, 2022.((cite web)): CS1 maint: url-status (link)
Banning, Lance (2000) [1999]. "Madison, James". American National Biography. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/anb/9780198606697.article.0300303. ISBN 978-0-19-860669-7. Retrieved May 14, 2022.((cite web)): CS1 maint: url-status (link)
Brinkley, Alan (2000) [1999]. "Roosevelt, Franklin Delano". American National Biography. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/anb/9780198606697.article.0600567. ISBN 978-0-19-860669-7. Retrieved May 14, 2022.((cite web)): CS1 maint: url-status (link)
Campbell, Ballard C. (2000) [1999]. "Cleveland, Grover". American National Biography. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/anb/9780198606697.article.0500144. ISBN 978-0-19-860669-7. Retrieved May 14, 2022.((cite web)): CS1 maint: url-status (link)
Cole, Donald B. (2000) [1999]. "Van Buren, Martin". American National Biography. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/anb/9780198606697.article.0300507. ISBN 978-0-19-860669-7. Retrieved May 14, 2022.((cite web)): CS1 maint: url-status (link)
Gara, Larry (2000) [1999]. "Pierce, Franklin". American National Biography. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/anb/9780198606697.article.0400788. ISBN 978-0-19-860669-7. Retrieved May 14, 2022.((cite web)): CS1 maint: url-status (link)
Gardner, Lloyd (2000) [1999]. "Johnson, Lyndon Baines". American National Biography. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/anb/9780198606697.article.0700147. ISBN 978-0-19-860669-7. Retrieved May 14, 2022.((cite web)): CS1 maint: url-status (link)
Gienapp, William E. (2000) [1999]. "Buchanan, James". American National Biography. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/anb/9780198606697.article.0400170. ISBN 978-0-19-860669-7. Retrieved May 14, 2022.((cite web)): CS1 maint: url-status (link)
Gould, Lewis L. (2000) [1999]. "McKinley, William". American National Biography. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/anb/9780198606697.article.0500507. ISBN 978-0-19-860669-7. Retrieved May 14, 2022.((cite web)): CS1 maint: url-status (link)
Gould, Lewis L. (2000) [1999]. "Taft, William Howard". American National Biography. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/anb/9780198606697.article.0600642. ISBN 978-0-19-860669-7. Retrieved May 14, 2022.((cite web)): CS1 maint: url-status (link)
Greene, John Robert (2013). "Ford, Gerald R., Jr". American National Biography. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/anb/9780198606697.article.1501345. ISBN 978-0-19-860669-7. Retrieved May 14, 2022.((cite web)): CS1 maint: url-status (link)
Gutzman, K. R. Constantine (2000) [1999]. "Harrison, William Henry". American National Biography. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/anb/9780198606697.article.0300211. ISBN 978-0-19-860669-7. Retrieved May 14, 2022.((cite web)): CS1 maint: url-status (link)
Hamby, Alonzo L. (2000) [1999]. "Truman, Harry S." American National Biography. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/anb/9780198606697.article.0700307. ISBN 978-0-19-860669-7. Retrieved May 14, 2022.((cite web)): CS1 maint: url-status (link)
Harbaugh, William H. (2000) [1999]. "Roosevelt, Theodore". American National Biography. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/anb/9780198606697.article.0600569. ISBN 978-0-19-860669-7. Retrieved May 14, 2022.((cite web)): CS1 maint: url-status (link)
Hargreaves, Mary W. M. (2000) [1999]. "Adams, John Quincy". American National Biography. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/anb/9780198606697.article.0300002. ISBN 978-0-19-860669-7. Retrieved May 14, 2022.((cite web)): CS1 maint: url-status (link)
Hawley, Ellis W. (2000) [1999]. "Harding, Warren Gamaliel". American National Biography. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/anb/9780198606697.article.0600253. ISBN 978-0-19-860669-7. Retrieved May 14, 2022.((cite web)): CS1 maint: url-status (link)
Hoff, Joan (2000) [1999]. "Hoover, Herbert Clark". American National Biography. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/anb/9780198606697.article.0600287. ISBN 978-0-19-860669-7. Retrieved May 14, 2022.((cite web)): CS1 maint: url-status (link)
Hoff, Joan (2000) [1999]. "Nixon, Richard Milhous". American National Biography. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/anb/9780198606697.article.0700684. ISBN 978-0-19-860669-7. Retrieved May 14, 2022.((cite web)): CS1 maint: url-status (link)
Hoogenboom, Ari (2000) [1999]. "Hayes, Rutherford Birchard". American National Biography. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/anb/9780198606697.article.0500331. ISBN 978-0-19-860669-7. Retrieved May 14, 2022.((cite web)): CS1 maint: url-status (link)
McCoy, Donald R. (2000) [1999]. "Coolidge, Calvin". American National Biography. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/anb/9780198606697.article.0600109. ISBN 978-0-19-860669-7. Retrieved May 14, 2022.((cite web)): CS1 maint: url-status (link)
McDonald, Forrest (2000) [1999]. "Washington, George". American National Biography. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/anb/9780198606697.article.0200332. ISBN 978-0-19-860669-7. Retrieved May 14, 2022.((cite web)): CS1 maint: url-status (link)
McPherson, James M. (2000) [1999]. "Grant, Ulysses S." American National Biography. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/anb/9780198606697.article.0500291. ISBN 978-0-19-860669-7. Retrieved May 14, 2022.((cite web)): CS1 maint: url-status (link)
McPherson, James M. (2000) [1999]. "Lincoln, Abraham". American National Biography. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/anb/9780198606697.article.0400631. ISBN 978-0-19-860669-7. Retrieved May 14, 2022.((cite web)): CS1 maint: url-status (link)
Parmet, 1917–22 November 1963) (2000) [1999]. "Kennedy, John Fitzgerald". American National Biography. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/anb/9780198606697.article.0700152. ISBN 978-0-19-860669-7. Retrieved May 14, 2022.((cite web)): CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: url-status (link)
Pencak, William (2000) [1999]. "Adams, John". American National Biography. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/anb/9780198606697.article.0100007. ISBN 978-0-19-860669-7. Retrieved May 14, 2022.((cite web)): CS1 maint: url-status (link)
Peskin, Allan (2000) [1999]. "Garfield, James Abram". American National Biography. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/anb/9780198606697.article.0500264. ISBN 978-0-19-860669-7. Retrieved May 14, 2022.((cite web)): CS1 maint: url-status (link)
Peterson, Merrill D. (2000). "Jefferson, Thomas". American National Biography. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/anb/9780198606697.article.0200196. ISBN 978-0-19-860669-7. Retrieved May 14, 2022.((cite web)): CS1 maint: url-status (link)
Rawley, James A. (2000) [1999]. "Polk, James Knox". American National Biography. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/anb/9780198606697.article.0400795. ISBN 978-0-19-860669-7. Retrieved May 14, 2022.((cite web)): CS1 maint: url-status (link)
Reeves, Thomas C. (2000) [1999]. "Arthur, Chester Alan". American National Biography. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/anb/9780198606697.article.0500033. ISBN 978-0-19-860669-7. Retrieved May 14, 2022.((cite web)): CS1 maint: url-status (link)
Remini, Robert V. (2000) [1999]. "Jackson, Andrew". American National Biography. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/anb/9780198606697.article.0300238. ISBN 978-0-19-860669-7. Retrieved May 14, 2022.((cite web)): CS1 maint: url-status (link)
Schaller, Michael (2004). "Reagan, Ronald Wilson". American National Biography. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/anb/9780198606697.article.0700791. ISBN 978-0-19-860669-7. Retrieved May 14, 2022.((cite web)): CS1 maint: url-status (link)
Shade, William G. (2000) [1999]. "Tyler, John". American National Biography. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/anb/9780198606697.article.0401004. ISBN 978-0-19-860669-7. Retrieved May 14, 2022.((cite web)): CS1 maint: url-status (link)
Smith, Elbert B. (2000) [1999]. "Taylor, Zachary". American National Biography. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/anb/9780198606697.article.0400978. ISBN 978-0-19-860669-7. Retrieved May 14, 2022.((cite web)): CS1 maint: url-status (link)
Spetter, Allan Burton (2000) [1999]. "Harrison, Benjamin". American National Biography. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/anb/9780198606697.article.0500320. ISBN 978-0-19-860669-7. Retrieved May 14, 2022.((cite web)): CS1 maint: url-status (link)
Trefousse, Hans L. (2000) [1999]. "Johnson, Andrew". American National Biography. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/anb/9780198606697.article.0400566. ISBN 978-0-19-860669-7. Retrieved May 14, 2022.((cite web)): CS1 maint: url-status (link)
"James Carter". whitehouse.gov. Retrieved May 14, 2022.((cite web)): CS1 maint: url-status (link)
"George H. W. Bush". whitehouse.gov. Retrieved May 14, 2022.((cite web)): CS1 maint: url-status (link)
"William J. Clinton". whitehouse.gov. Retrieved May 14, 2022.((cite web)): CS1 maint: url-status (link)
"George W. Bush". whitehouse.gov. Retrieved May 14, 2022.((cite web)): CS1 maint: url-status (link)
"Barack Obama". whitehouse.gov. Retrieved May 14, 2022.((cite web)): CS1 maint: url-status (link)
"Donald Trump". whitehouse.gov. Retrieved May 14, 2022.((cite web)): CS1 maint: url-status (link)
"Joe Biden". whitehouse.gov. Retrieved May 14, 2022.((cite web)): CS1 maint: url-status (link)

News articles

Horsley, Scott; Rosenbaum, Marcus; Kesbeh, Dina (November 20, 2018). "Former President George H.W. Bush Dies At 94". NPR. Retrieved 2022-01-11.
Jamison, Dennis (December 31, 2014). "George Washington' Views on Political Parties in America". The Washington Times. Retrieved February 20, 2020.
Tumulty, Karen (November 30, 2018). "George H.W. Bush, 41st President of the United States, Dies at 94". The Washington Post. Retrieved November 23, 2021.

2: Scope metadata

WP:SNOW Yes, the lists should contain scope metadata from now on. Clear consensus was that this improves accessibility (MOS:ACCESS). starship .paint (exalt) 10:58, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The lists currently do not contain scope metadata in headers. The Manual of Style on accessibility says that the scope attribute "clearly identifies headers as either row headers or column headers", so that they can "be associated to corresponding cells". Scope metadata does not change the table's appearance, but they provide information mainly for screen readers. Should the lists contain scope metadata (Yes or No)?

Discussion 2

Yes. The Manual of Style on accessibility recommends using header scope. Scope data adds more semantic information to the HTML, which makes the table more accessible to screen readers. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 20:01, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Scope data is essential per MOS:ACCESS. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:20, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - Per MOS:ACCESS, no drawbacks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:38, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, gobsmacked this is even being put forth as an RFC. --Golbez (talk) 20:45, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Golbez: In § Recent edits & reversions, Thewolfchild did not "believe [my] changes were necessary or an improvement", and GoodDay said that it was a "Procedural revert, as [I (Tol)] didn't get a consensus at this talkpage, for the change [I] made", and that I should "Open up an RFC" — so I did. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 20:54, 9 December 2021 (UTC) (Edit: Thewolfchild has stated that the quote was not directed at addition of column scope. I misunderstood what the quoted comment was directed at, and retract my statement that "Thewolfchild did not 'believe [my] changes were necessary or an improvement'" with regard to column scope. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 15:45, 11 December 2021 (UTC))[reply]
And I appreciate that, but there was no reason to go this far. If a single user is crusading against basic accessibility improvements, the solution is to bring that user's unreasonable demands to the wider community, not to bow to their whim. --Golbez (talk) 21:03, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Tol:, why have you mentioned me here when my edit had nothing to with your changes to metadata? I reverted changes you made to text in the lead, so you can strike the reference to me above. - wolf 21:43, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies. While you did only revert my lead changes, I thought your comment that I quoted was directed at all of my changes. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 00:33, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, clearly you thought wrong. My edit only reverted your changes to the lead and my summary made no mention of any edits you made to table markup. - wolf 01:04, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I acknowledge that. Please don't edit my comments — I already apologised for misinterpreting your comment. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 01:07, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yet you edit other's comments? You shouldn't have posted those remarks in the first place, they are disingenuous and a mischaracterization, but further, you should've struck them when it was first brought to your attention, otherwise your "apology" rings hollow. You can't claim to regret offending someone, while at the same time continuing to offend them. - wolf 01:48, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I edit others' comments in compliance with WP:TPO. Usually, this falls under "Attributing unsigned comments", "Fixing format errors" (particularly "fixing list markup (to avoid disruption of screen readers, for instance)"), and "Fixing links". The guideline says that "Striking out text ... constitutes a change in meaning. It should be done only by the user who wrote it, or as otherwise provided in this talk page guideline." The only reason that the guideline provides to strike another user's comment is when it was made by "made by blocked sock puppets". Please do not strike out text in my comment again. I am explicitly stating that I misunderstood your comment (for the third time here), but do not wish to strike part of my comment. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 02:12, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, and regardless if you "misunderstood" or not, you now know, explicitly, that your comment is factually incorrect. By restoring it (repeatedly no less), you are now intentionally posting an accusation you know to to be wrong. Personally I think it's obnoxious behaviour, but as for p&g, it's tantamount to trolling and a personal attack, the comment should either be struck, redacted and/or collapsed. You have no valid reason to retain that accusation, your edit to the lead and my revert of it have absolutely nothing to do with this RfC, so let it go already. - wolf 04:16, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thewolfchild: My comment stated: "In § Recent edits & reversions, Thewolfchild did not 'believe [my] changes were necessary or an improvement'", which is factually correct. My comment was regarding reversion of my change to add header scope, and so was implying, not explicitly stating, that your comment was with regard to that. That was not correct. Your comment that I was quoting was in reply to a comment of mine, in which I clearly stated that I was discussing both wording changes and scope addition. As such, I interpreted that the "changes" you referenced included both wording changes and scope addition. In this thread, you have clarified that they were only applicable to the wording changes that you reverted. I replied that I understood and apologised for the misinterpretation. Please refrain from further editing my comment against guidelines. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 05:56, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you should follow the guidelines yourself. - wolf 19:51, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As I requested at AN/EW (permalink), "Could you please give a link or quote from TPG which supports striking my comment?" Additionally, could you please present a diff showing an edit of mine to this discussion where I do not follow TPG? Tol (talk | contribs) @ 21:11, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Further discussion on Tol's quote of Thewolfchild moved to collapsed section below Tol (talk | contribs) @ 15:53, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What a mess, you're turning this into a farce. You still have the original accusation posted, without any direct support. My reply, that pointed out the your accusation was incorrect, included a link to the actual revert, and pointed out that striking was the obvious solution, (FTR: "Tol, why have you mentioned me here when my edit had nothing to with your changes to metadata? I reverted changes you made to text in the lead, so you can strike the reference to me above."), has been moved and conveniently hidden. You should've struck the accusation in the first place, but didn't. You should've left the striking I added, but didn't. Furthermore, I didn't agree to you again altering or moving my comments, if you say I must to leave yours as is, I expect you to leave mine be as well, so feel free to self-revert those changes. - wolf 19:51, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved the extended discussion back above. You stated at AN/EW (permalink) that you were "asking ... that the entire sub-thread be collapsed as off-topic, with the exception of the portion of their first reply that follows the accusation", so I attempted to collapse the thread as you desired. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 21:11, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Might've saved a lot of hassle, if the sentence-in-question had been struck. GoodDay (talk) 02:20, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No - Maintain status quo. It's ain't broke, so don't fix it. GoodDay (talk) 20:51, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon? It doesn't change anything aesthetically, and makes the article more useful to those with screen readers. What is with your crusade against this basic accessibility improvement? --Golbez (talk) 21:01, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)GoodDay, it ain't broke for you, but what about those with disabilities, for whom MOS:ACCESS was written? – Muboshgu (talk) 21:01, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not changing my stance. GoodDay (talk) 21:08, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Unacceptable argument. WP:ACCESSIBILITY is a guideline with explicit endorsement by WMF and is based on legal grounds and principles of non-discrimination against disabled readers. "If it ain't broke don't fix it" is not a valid reason to disregard the fact that it is broken for people other than you. AlexEng^(TALK) 21:40, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The RFC closer can make that decision. GoodDay (talk) 22:00, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes If this doesn't meet accessibility needs, then it's broke. Reywas92^Talk 21:12, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes – As MOS on accessibility recommends using header scope and as there is no compelling reason not to do so. Drdpw (talk) 21:27, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes per MOS and WP:READER. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:33, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes clearly. Absent any special exception for this case, accessibility should be respected. AlexEng^(TALK) 21:42, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is broken, so fix it. Why is this even a question? Did someone resist fixes? Dicklyon (talk) 01:31, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Dicklyon: Yes. See the "No" vote by GoodDay (and § Recent edits & reversions, the discussion that prompted this). Tol (talk | contribs) @ 02:18, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes — I participated in the previous discussion. One of the most basic accessibility requirement of the table, should be uncontroversial to add. Adding header scope has benefit, and I fail to see a single disadvantage of it. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:46, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - not sure why this is being fought? SSSB (talk) 09:06, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, don't see why not. - wolf 04:16, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - Pretty easy decision, WP:ACCESSIBILITY is clear on this point. I don't buy the status quo argument one bit. PraiseVivec (talk) 12:51, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - Per everything above. Status quo for status quo's sake is a really weird argument to me... if that was our policy, no article would ever be improved. I also am confused why this is a question, or why someone would object, or cause an edit war over it. Fieari (talk) 03:19, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Per all Signed, I Am Chaos (talk) 17:51, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, obviously. GoodDay's revert was unacceptable and they have made no attempt to understand the change being suggested here. — Bilorv (talk) 22:19, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

3: Column order

Although this was an open-ended question, with editors being able to choose any order they'd prefer, there seems to be a clear consensus to to have the items in the following order: Number -> Potrait -> Name -> Term/Date range -> Party -> Election -> Vice President. It's important to note that there was very little variation among participants, with those choosing to forego status quo agreeing with that order, especially when it came to the portrait and name staying at the leftmost columns of the list, as they were considered the most important element. (non-admin closure) Isabelle ^🔔 00:38, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The lists are currently ordered as follows:

(Vice) Presidency (number and date range)
Portrait
Name (and birth/death dates)
Party
Election
Accompanying (Vice) President

How should the lists be ordered?

Discussion 3

The most important part of the list is, of course, the president themselves. So that should be the primary data point of the column, not their time in office. So that leads me to: Number; Portrait and name (no birth/death dates but battles are chosen); Period in office; Party; Election; and Vice. Period in office is separate from number, and they should not be combined. --Golbez (talk) 20:50, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Status quo - Don't change anything. It's not broke, so don't fix it. GoodDay (talk) 20:52, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Number (narrow column), then portrait and name. The identifier for each row is the person so that should be on the left, not the dates. The status quo is an illogical order and inconsistent with every other officeholder list. Reywas92^Talk 21:11, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Number, portrait and name, per Golbez and Reywas92. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:37, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I find the above reasoning of Golbez and Reywas92 sound, and concur: number (Arabic numeral) // portrait and name (sorting by last name) // period in office // party // election // vice president (sorting by last name, and with "Vacant after" cells all sorting after all names). Drdpw (talk) 21:49, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Number -> Portrait -> Name -> Term -> Party -> Election -> Vice President(s). I would also be okay with Portrait and Name being swapped. In no case should "Presidency" (or equivalent nomenclature for that column) appear to the left of the name and portrait. The column provides ancillary information that is supplemental to the order in which the presidents appear (reinforced by the number column) and should not be presented before the identity information of the president. AlexEng^(TALK) 22:10, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not to try to push my preferred order, just to justify it, but: It seems more aesthetically pleasing/balanced to have the portrait as far left as we can, so that it doesn't break the flow of the table. Also why I prefer the party color bar towards the left, rather than right next to the party - it breaks up the flow. The table should thin towards the right, not be bumpy. (I just came up with those high-brow terms) --Golbez (talk) 22:18, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Party color column belongs next to the party name column, as they have a symbiotic connection to each other. Drdpw (talk) 22:43, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can see that, and wouldn't fight against it; I just find having the "graphical" elements grouped together to be more pleasing. Since it's not a real data column (since it relies purely on another and is only a quick visual aid, and is in itself inaccessible) it didn't seem important where it went, as long as it went somewhere reasonable. --Golbez (talk) 23:21, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like you both agree with me on the order, or am I wrong about that? I didn't take a position on where the party color should go, but now that I've read your responses, I agree that it should be closely linked to the party column. With respect to the accessibility of party color – it is acceptable because it is a supplementary visual aid and does not exclusively require color vision to identify the president's party; in other words, it's fine because we also have the name of the party in text in the column. AlexEng^(TALK) 06:24, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Status quo - first, this is proposal to change the order of the existing columns. We are not asked to split or merge columns, or add or remove information from the columns or cells. The "reasoning" provided by Golbez and Reywas92 in their !votes, and accepted by Drdpw, goes beyond the question posted and is not particularly clear (or consistent). The "most important data point is the president themselves" does not justify splitting the "number" and "period in office" columns, especially since the number would remain at the far left where it already is and the "name" (the actual identifier) remains after that. Combining "portrait" and "name" into a single column, when the "portrait" is already by far the largest cell in each row, will just make those cells larger and unwieldy, (even if you remove the dates of birth & death, which this appears to be a backdoor attempt at). There is only six somewhat narrow columns, this is not a particularly wide table, even on cell screens there is no need to scroll left or right, all information is readily and easily acquired, so there really is no need to start merging and splitting columns, removing any info, and moving the columns order around. - wolf 22:57, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure there's a reason "reasoning" is in quotes. But anyway: "does not justify splitting the [columns]" No, that in itself doesn't; the fact that it's ugly, is combining two different datapoints, and isn't done by any other list that I'm aware of, that justifies not having number and term in the same column. As for how the name can be the primary data point yet not be at the far left, that's because the far left is the list identifier. If we didn't care about the order then, yes, portrait/name would be first. But we do. For any other layout questions, I simply refer to the featured list List of governors of Alabama. --Golbez (talk) 23:18, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to read into a pair of quotes... go nuts, have fun. And you can't possibly see that much of a difference between the this list and the Alabama gubernatorial list, so much so that this list is "ugly" and that one is... pretty? - wolf 01:30, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As for what's "ugly" I plainly stated that it was the combined number/term box that we presently have, and which Alabama doesn't, because, as stated above, it's ugly, combines two different datapoints, and isn't done by any other list that I'm aware of. --Golbez (talk) 04:49, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do not mean to combine portrait and name in a single cell, I meant portrait column then name column. I do not want to remove the dates. I just want to move the term column to the right, so do not put words in my/our mouth. Separating the number and term of office is what most other such lists like List of prime ministers of Canada and List of governors of Indiana do so I'm not sure why we need to "justify" bringing this in line what others have. The number is narrow enough that it's okay to keep on the left. Reywas92^Talk 23:25, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh relax, I didn't "put words in your mouth". And read WP:OSE. - wolf 01:30, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's okay mate, it's what you do. And while, yes, "other stuff [doesn't] exist" is an argument to avoid, it's still valid if we're saying it doesn't exist anywhere else because it's a bad idea. "We shouldn't include dickbutt in this article, no other articles have a picture of dickbutt on them" "ahem, read OSE" --Golbez (talk) 04:53, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OSE is for deletion discussions. Seeking uniformity among similar articles is perfectly reasonable. "which this appears to be a backdoor attempt at" is a rude, baseless insinuation. Reywas92^Talk 15:09, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Start with the number (why the list is ordered the way it is), then go name, potrait (or potrait, name, don't mind), date range, elections(s) won, party (or party, election(s) won, don't mind), vice-president (whose relevance on the list is borderline). SSSB (talk) 09:17, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Number -> Portrait -> Name -> Term -> Party -> Election -> Vice President(s), per AlexEng and others above. PraiseVivec (talk) 12:55, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

General discussion

Pinging all users who participated in previous discussions (
). Tol (talk | contribs) @ 19:55, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So which option is the status quo? GoodDay (talk) 20:28, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@GoodDay: In question 1, option A is the status quo, as it states ("A: Unsorted (status quo)"). In question 2, No is the status quo, as it states ("The lists currently do not contain scope metadata in headers"). In question 3, (Vice) Presidency (number and date range), Portrait, Name (and birth/death dates), Party, Election, and then Accompanying (Vice) President is the status quo, as it states ("The lists are currently ordered as follows: ..."). Tol (talk | contribs) @ 20:46, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Tol: In the threaded replies, the indents are a mix of colons and asterisks, as per your suppressed instructions, but doesn't that contravene WP:THREAD? - wolf 21:56, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Thewolfchild: I don't think so — although it says that "[g]enerally, colons and asterisks should not be mixed", it follows by stating that "complex discussions may mix them". I chose to explicitly recommend a style while drafting, so that it wouldn't all be a mix of different indentation — though it seems it's turning out that way anyway. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 00:38, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While this RfC may appear complex, at least more than it needed to be, the minor dispute behind it is actually quite straightforward. And as I said, the indents are mixed in your instructions. But, whatever... - wolf 01:13, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, so that all first-level comments are bullets and all replies are not. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 01:20, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Thewolfchild: I applaud the good faith attempt to support accessibility, but you're mistaken in this case. The formatting suggested by Tol does not contravene WP:THREAD. WP:THREAD says Generally, colons and asterisks should not be mixed; if you see asterisks are being used in a page, use them as well. I think you interpreted that as don't use both a colon and an asterisk in the same line, but what it actually means is don't reply to a colon with just asterisks and don't reply to an asterisk with just colons. Please read the appropriate section in MOS:INDENTMIX. The style suggested by Tol is the third example Y, while the mixed style referred to in WP:THREAD is the fourth example N. Hope that helps! AlexEng^(TALK) 06:59, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
PLEASE STOP BULLET POINTING responses. It's damned annoying & makes the above discussions confusing. GoodDay (talk) 02:01, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@GoodDay: I appreciate that you're also fixing these. However, please don't just use colons, because replies to a bullet-pointed comment should have one bullet point and then the appropriate amount of colons for indentation (* for a comment; *:, *::, etc. for replies). Here's the MoS guideline on this with some advice. Thanks! Tol (talk | contribs) @ 02:17, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, as long as it doesn't leave a row of dots. GoodDay (talk) 02:20, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 02:28, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, are you annoyed because it makes it harder for you to read the talk page? Huh. So you're asking us to make concessions to make it more accessible to you? Hm. Nah, I see nothing broken here, so nothing to fix. --Golbez (talk) 04:54, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. GoodDay (talk) 05:01, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I lol'ed! Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:11, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend a 4th option. Delete the vice presidents from this article & delete the presidents from the List of vice presidents of the United States article. They're separate offices, which don't need to be interwined with each others' list. GoodDay (talk) 07:17, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Incredible! Hmm. What would we need in such a table, I wonder? Hmm. Obviously, the president each VP served under, and the dates, and... Nah. Let's stick with the status quo. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:13, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal 2 is quite clear cut, as its got a binary (Yes or No) choice. Proposals 1 & 3, each have more than two choices & are less likely to get a consensus for anything, thus defaulting to the status quo. GoodDay (talk) 16:46, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so; we have a lot of "B or C" and "A or C". Question 2 was very easy to draft; question 1 was hard. I didn't know if there should be a 2-part question:
1. should it be sorted? (y/n)
2. if it's sorted should it be one row per (vice) president? (y/n)
or an option A/B/C like I did. I think the latter is fairer, because there are some people (like me) who would prefer only one type of sorted table. For example, I would prefer option C, and my second choice is option A, but I dislike option B and would prefer A (status quo) over it. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 21:17, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hoping we'll have some 'more' input & also posting, to keep this RFC alive. GoodDay (talk) 02:13, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Drdpw: why haven't you taken a position on Sortability? GoodDay (talk) 23:23, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the same reason I haven't commented on column order — I don't have much of a preference. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 00:12, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Closure

I've put in a request for closure, of this RFC. GoodDay (talk) 20:18, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, GoodDay. Hopefully this will resolve these issues. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 21:39, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We're still waiting, folks. GoodDay (talk) 14:29, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The remaining two discussions have been closed, concluding the RfC. I will work on their implementation now. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 01:42, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Both have now been implemented. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 02:02, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tol: What about the List of vice presidents of the United States article? The RFC covered it, as well. GoodDay (talk) 02:27, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@GoodDay: Ah, thanks for reminding me.

Doing that too now. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 02:29, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that includes both options that passed. GoodDay (talk) 02:45, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@GoodDay:

Done both now. To make the VPs sortable, I needed to add sort values for the names instead of just moving them from another column. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 03:34, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I tested the 'sortability' function & what it does is mix up the order, sometimes it duplicates the individuals. Anyways, that's what ya'll wanted. GoodDay (talk) 03:45, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@GoodDay: Yes, it orders the rows in a different way. For example, sorting by name orders them by last name. My proposed option A would not have duplication, but consensus was found to be for B. Personally, I'm just glad that it's closed; I don't have strong desires either way. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 05:58, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Length of time in office, etc.

@RookieInTheWiki: would you please stop edit-warring your proposed changes into the article. This article & List of vice presidents of the United States, just recently went through an RFC, which resulted in both article's current layout. GoodDay (talk) 14:13, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I recently added added a new Colum in this article that had the time in office of each US president. User Drdpw reverted my edit saying that the information I included could be found at another article List of presidents of the United States by time in office. We went back and forth once before user GoodDay rightfully advised me to bring the matter to the talk page. So I did. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RookieInTheWiki (talk • contribs) 14:19, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for any trouble I may have caused And GoodDay I saw your request for me to stop after I made that last addition to the talk page. Again, sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RookieInTheWiki (talk • contribs) 14:24, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@RookieInTheWiki: don't worry about it, you just joined and takes a little while to learn how things work. Please go through the 'welcome' template I posted on your user talk page, and in the meantime, try to remember to both WP:INDENT and WP:SIGN your posts. Thanks - wolf 02:56, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with GoodDay that this column should not be added. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 02:50, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question, why do you believe that adding time in office colum is a bad idea?--176.58.195.68 (talk) 08:15, 5 February 2022 (UTC) The question above was by me. Sorry forgot to log in before posting it.--RookieInTheWiki (talk) 08:18, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Most have already said that we have a separate list for that. For curious readers, we have the starting and ending date of each president's term. Term can be calculated from that. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:28, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because that information a) is already in another article, b) can be calculated for individuals, and c) would make the table wider for no reason SSSB (talk) 17:58, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John Tyler image

With all due respect we should keep the image of him when he was president. Not change it to the older version of him, long after he left the White House. GoodDay (talk) 23:40, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The previous image was a 1860s print by Brady. I thought it would be better to have an actually photo with a known date instead of a print portraying him while president but actually made almost 20 year later. Orson12345 (talk) 23:54, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's best that we (as much as possible) have an image of a US president when he's US president. It's also a better practice, to seek a consensus for image changes 'first', rather then boldly make a change (let alone, revert to enforce it). GoodDay (talk) 23:59, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see the 'D' in WP:BRD is being practiced. In the meantime, the page is back to WP:QUO until the matter is decided. As for me, while I do see some benefit to Orson's position, I will have to side with GoodDay on this as I also believe it's better to have an image that shows us their likeness while in office. - wolf 02:13, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of consistency, should we replace the photos we have of John Quincy Adams and Martin Van Buren which were taken long after their presidencies with paintings taken during their presidencies? EdwardElric2016 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:03, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good idea, what images did you have in mind? (eg: do we already have them available, say on Commons? Can you link them here?) - wolf 00:28, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For John Quincy Adams, I'm thinking that this image would be appropriate

. This was painted in 1824, the year Adams was elected to the Presidency.

For Martin Van Buren, I'm thinking that this image would be appropriate

. This was painted around 1837-38 during his Presidency. EdwardElric2016 (talk) 00:30, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would support both of those images. The current images on the list for those two men were taken many years, decades even, after their terms in office. - wolf 12:40, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. I'll go ahead and make the changes. EdwardElric2016 (talk) 05:46, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll use this image for John Quincy Adams instead

. This was painted in 1828 during his final full year in office and I think it looks better than the previous painting I presented. EdwardElric2016 (talk) 06:05, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I say go for it. Thanks - wolf 06:20, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Citations

I would like to add individual citations for every individual president and the "Notes", somewhat similar to the citations in the List of vice presidents of the United States. Would ulimately like to take this list to FL status! I had also added citation to the lead few monthes ago (Special:Diff/1055795929/1056604174). – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:00, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Refs are always a good thing, as long as they're reliable and don't become redundant, but as for notes, what did you have in mind? The idea of notes has come up before and has been debated. - wolf 12:22, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Basically citing the footnotes. We have 20 of them, most of which require citations. Rest, citations would be reliable. Also had a few other ideas is mind, like we have 6-paragraph lead, while it should be not more than 4. Could merge the 2nd/3rd and 5th/6th paragraph. Having a lead collage image of four presidents (Washington, Lincoln, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and the incumbent president) as followed in various other similar lists. But the primary concern, for now, are the citations. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 03:21, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please, don't add any lead collage image in this or the vice presidents list article. GoodDay (talk) 14:52, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, I won't, it was just an idea. I'll add citations shortly. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:57, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree to the current office holders. Biden here & Harris at the other article. Though they would likely be 'new' targets for vandals. GoodDay (talk) 15:43, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That could work, but I am not too enthusiastic about just the current president's portrait. The idea was that this is list of all presidents, so the "important" ones (according to scholars: Washington, Lincoln, F. D. Roosevelt) should be highlighted. But keeping that aside, are you OK with the citations I added. And any ideas how to condense the 6-para lead to about 4 paras. I wouldn't delete anything, just merge paragraphs. And also few other things I noticed is that we have full name of 'Richard Nixon' repeated in the lead, when, at the second instance, it should just be 'Nixon'. I would like to work on those things, but discussing here first. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:03, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave it to others, on how citations & paragraphs should be handled. GoodDay (talk) 16:08, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]