Talk:List of presidents of the United States/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

FAQ Q2

Q2 is mainly referencing the myth that Atchison was acting president. But what about HW and Cheney? I think there should be a note next to their names in the VP column saying they acted as president. Example:

Presidency		President		Party		Election	Vice President
40	January 20, 1981 – January 20, 1989		Ronald Reagan		Republican	1980	George H. W. Bush
						1984
43	January 20, 2001 – January 20, 2009		George W. Bush		Republican	2000	Dick Cheney
						2004

--eduardog3000 (talk) 19:07, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

If there is no discussion I will boldly make this change and see how it fares. --eduardog3000 (talk) 17:45, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I would be inclined to revert such an edit, and would cite a lack of consensus for including detail. The reason why there should not be a note next to Bush's and Cheney's names in the VP column saying they acted as president is because their time as acting president was brief, mere hours, and each occasion passed-bye uneventfully, thus rendering the fact not noteworthy. Drdpw (talk) 19:17, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

You can't expect people to respect such a revert if nobody contributed to the discuss which sought to attempt to find a consensus. I'm sorry, but I just don't find that reasonable. For my part, I didn't join the discussion because I'm not fussed either way.
SSSB (talk) 19:21, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

You are correct, that rash action would have been unreasonable on my part. Drdpw (talk) 19:35, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I disagree that time and eventfulness are disqualifiers for a footnote. I'd say the fact that they acted at all is pertinent information in a list of people who have been in the position. If it were for a significant span it would probably warrant a row on the table, so I think a footnote is fitting for those short uneventful occasions. --eduardog3000 (talk) 20:59, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with the additons. They're just notes, so they don't clutter the table, and all instances of the VPs acting as President are noted and sourced in their BLPs. jmho - wolf 23:56, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't add such notes here. If anywhere, such notes would be added at the List of vice presidents of the United States. Bush in 1985 & Cheney in 2002, 2007 were not president of the United States, but rather vice president performing the powers & duties of the presidency. GoodDay (talk) 16:05, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Obama photo

As has been seen in the edit history the past few days, there is some disagreement over Obama's portrait.

Currently, his first term photo is on the page. This is inconsistent with most of the other photos on the page which are using the photos found on the official White House website (Here: https://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-white-house/presidents/), which to my knowledge use second-term portraits when available.

I know concerns have been brought up that Obama's second term portrait is too far back and unlike the other images, which are all closely cropped headshots, but this can easily be fixed with cropping.

Can someone point me to a consensus to use Obama's first term portrait, if there is one? Also, what is the required steps to challenge a consensus? Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 04:26, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

@Basil the Bat Lord: You posted this 2 weeks ago and there were no replies, meaning no interest and no consensus. You have your answer. Therefore there is no need for your RfC below. It's just a form of badgering/forum-shopping. Along with no consensus for your proposal here, I posted a link to to an already established consensus, in your RfC below. I suggest you strike the RfC and move on to something else. I know you want to help, but this keeps coming up and I think we need a break from these proposals, for stability if anything. JMHO - wolf 07:24, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: How do you change an existing consensus if not via RfC? Genuine question. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 08:04, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

You've been on WP for awhile now, I don't think you need me to explain that. If you think there is an appetite for a new consensus, despite everything in front you here on this page, then continue with your RfC. Who knows... maybe you'll swing it. - wolf 08:31, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild:I was genuinely asking... I'm not as familiar with WP as you seem to think I am. This the first time I've ever opened an RfC on anything. I was under the impression that RfC's are the appropriate way to seek to change existing consensus, is that not the case? Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 00:11, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

And I genuinely answered. But instead of seeking the opinion of a single editor, it's probably better to go by what WP says; for info on RfCs, go here and for info on consensus, go here. Have a nice day - wolf 00:30, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

"Former presidents who ran for the presidency" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Former presidents who ran for the presidency. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 11#Former presidents who ran for the presidency until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 04:36, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Joe Biden is the current President, not Incumbent

I don't know how to edit yet but can someone please remove Incumbent from Joe Biden's listing as our 46th President? Thank you. Dramaced (talk) 16:56, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

... why? Incumbent means the current office holder. --Golbez (talk) 17:18, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

@Dramaced: Wicktionary: incumbent. - wolf 19:01, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Joe Biden's New portrait

Because Joe Biden is the current president now, why don't we have this as his new portrait [1]--Greencarrots98 (talk) 22:56, 12 February 2021 (UTC)Greencarrots98

Because, that media file has been nominated for deletion. Drdpw (talk) 00:37, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

"List of former United States presidents who ran for office after leaving the presidency" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect List of former United States presidents who ran for office after leaving the presidency. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 20#List of former United States presidents who ran for office after leaving the presidency until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:45, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Peer review archived

The peer review has now been archived at Wikipedia:Peer review/List of presidents of the United States/archive1. The suggestions all pertain to the lead. I'm not willing to take it on by myself, but I'd very much suggest that the articles' top contributors put it forward at WP:FLC after applying the tweaks (I'd be willing to co-nom). It won't take much work to get this in passing shape, and it's low-hanging fruit for anyone who wants a WP:Million award. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:10, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

"List of presents of the United States" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect List of presents of the United States. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 11#List of presents of the United States until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Mdewman6 (talk) 02:15, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

"Presidentiad" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Presidentiad. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 11#Presidentiad until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Mdewman6 (talk) 02:37, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

"Gallery of Presidents of the United States" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Gallery of Presidents of the United States. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 11#Gallery of Presidents of the United States until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Mdewman6 (talk) 03:20, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

John Adams portrait

Currently the article uses the Stuart portrait of John Adams:

However, the official portrait is the Trumbell portrait:

Can we get a consensus on updating the Adams portrait?

Thurgoodmarshallisbae (talk) 23:00, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

What is problematic about the Stuart portrait? Why change to the Trumbull portrait? Drdpw (talk) 03:53, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

• This article is obviously a very important one, and many websites and search engines will use the images Wikipedia has on this article. In the interest of education, I think it might be best to be consistent with the official portraits. This may just be a personal preference; not a huge deal, but something I thought I would being up. Thurgoodmarshallisbae (talk) 23:26, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

  I'm not sure I follow your train of thought with your second sentence. How is subscribing to an "official" potrait in the interest of education?
  SSSB (talk) 11:30, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

• The current portrait is fine, and it's there because we already had a consensus done (actually several, I believe). Not sure why every few weeks another user pops in and suddenly wants another consensus...
  • "I want the one where he's doing his high school senior pose!"
  • "No, I want the one where he's going with Coquettish Ingénue!"
• The list is fine. I think there's better things to do. (jmho) - wolf 17:22, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Glitch on presidents list

On the list there is a glitch where the second you scroll down to the 44th president all of the pictures disappear. Not sure why or how this is happening but it is happening. UnderTails63 (talk) 23:12, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

– I did not detect a glitch in the table. Drdpw (talk) 00:32, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Me neither, ftr - wolf 01:20, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I get it to, but only on my mobile browser.
SSSB (talk) 09:19, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I see it now, (if I'm on my smartphone, I always use desktop mode), but just tried looking at the table in mobile and yep, when you scroll the table, the images disappear when reach the bottom. I have to refresh the page to get them back. File a report to VPT? - wolf 17:30, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I am also experiencing the same issue with presidential pictures disappearing alter scrolling to the end of the list. Worth noting this only happens on my iPhone (Browser: safari / IPhone 11pro updated to latest software). However I did not experience this on my I-pad w/ Safari Herenow44 (talk) 04:37, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

RfC on Obama Photo

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 opened a talk section about the Obama portrait but saw no discussion, so I'm opening an RfC.

All of the portraits listed on this page seem to follow the portraits listed on the official White House presidents list, which is most often the second-term portrait of Presidents who have served a second term (here: https://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-white-house/presidents/)

Obama's portrait is an exception, his first-term portrait from 2009 is used in the article despite a second-term portrait existing and being used on the White House site and despite all of the presidents around him using their more recent portraits.

Question: Which of these photos should be used for Barack Obama's portrait on this article?

• Option A: First term portrait (current).
• Option B: Second term portrait.
• Option C: Cropped version of second term portrait.

• 
  Option A
• 
  Option B
• 
  Option C

Personally I think Option C is suitable. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 06:55, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Option D (same as "A") - we go with the already established consensus on images in the list, that includes the current Obama portrait (which would be A). No need for another RfC. (jmho) - wolf 07:12, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• Option C. It shows his hair turning gray. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 07:17, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• A or C, we don't see his folded arms, in either of them. GoodDay (talk) 16:29, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• A or C (no preference between the two), the zoom level is consistent with the others.
  SSSB (talk) 17:00, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• A only my personal nitpick, but the way that C has cropped out his folded arms, it looks like he's taking a selfie. Unknown Temptation (talk) 19:50, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• Question, for other 2-term presidents, which term's portraits have we used for them? — Czello 17:59, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment, don't know about that, but I do beleive that every President has a first term photo. There's something to be said about consistency, it often correlates with stability. - wolf 21:51, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• C second-term portrait is better than first and a cropped view in this case is preferable. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 06:21, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
• C more recent and higher quality. But I find the statement (Obama's portrait is an exception, his first-term portrait from 2009 is used in the article despite a second-term portrait existing and being used on the White House site and despite all of the presidents around him using their more recent portraits.) misleading since Reagan's portrait for example uses his first term one instead of his second.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 14:09, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
• Not C personally I believe that the the United States flag must be visible on a former (or current) President's portrait, wherever present in the actual image. Option C, which is the cropped version of option B, crops out the flag. CX Zoom (talk) 16:16, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option C. It has a good resolution and quality.Sea Ane (talk) 21:21, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• A it is in line with the the other protraits, with the flag shown. Also, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eccekevin (talk • contribs) 20:43, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• A The flag in the background is a nice touch and for consistency, since the photos before and after Obama's both have flags in their background. Some1 (talk) 23:58, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
• Option A agree with user:wolf.  Augu  Maugu ♨ 07:42, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
• A There is a good figure-ground relation. And is in line with the other portraits. Frodar (talk) 13:04, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

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.

Updating the portraits of Quincy Adams and Van Buren

The portrait of Quincy Adams currently being used was created roughly 15 years (likely more) after his presidency:

I suggest we use a portrait of him that was likely created during his presidency instead:

Van Buren also has a portrait created long after his presidency, around 20 years:

We should use this painting of him instead, since it was also likely created during his presidency:

PJRoRo (talk) 17:08, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Ronald Reagan's portrait

• 
  Proposed image
• 
  Current image

Quick question, why is Reagan's lead image his first term official portrait vs his second term official portrait? For Bush and Obama, their lead images are their second term's official portraits. Just wondering. I've placed Reagan's second term portrait for visual reference. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:52, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I've added the current image to allow comparison without going to the list. Images on this list are not chosen based on them being second term potraits. The are chosen for image quality and consistency with other pictures (in terms of how they look, not when they were taken). I currently oppose this swap based on the second critera based on that criteria. Visually, the current image most closely matches the others in this article.
SSSB (talk) 08:05, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Also the Obama potrait is from his first term.
SSSB (talk) 08:08, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

With whether Reagan's first term or second term portrait should be used, i really think it just depends on whether more people think that it should always be first or second term portraits are better to represent them. I would recommend that this matter is put to a vote to try and get a consensus Lawrence 979 (talk) 23:37, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

The initial question has been answered; there is nothing to vote on. Drdpw (talk) 23:58, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Quick question about the naming conventions

How do we decide when to make the titular names of the Presidents include their middle name, their middle initial or no middle name at all? Can the names given be trusted to reflect the most common names of these Presidents? I'm working on something where I need the most idiomatic names of the presidents and want to use this a reference, but I'm leery about whether some of the names (such as Harry S. Truman instead of Harry Truman, William Howard Taft instead of William Taft) are accurate for this purpose. 24.59.152.85 (talk) 14:51, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I beleive (but I could be wrong) that the page uses the common name. (also worth bearing in mind that) Even if the idea was to use the commonname, it is possible that someone changed to a name they prefered, and no-one bothered to change it back. So I wouldn't use Wikipedia as a reference, Wikipedia isn't a reliable source. Wikipedia even has a policy against using Wikipedia as a source: Wikipedia:Verifiability#Wikipedia and sources that mirror or use it
SSSB (talk) 16:58, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 August 2021

There were two parties before the 1st Congress. The Federalists and Anti-Federalists. After the articles of confederation proved to be lacking a central authority, the above mentioned parties began forming a new United States so that each state would have equal opportunity to pursue their interests while retaining sovereignty.

Source: literally any textbook. 2600:8801:2A8F:2700:8990:5602:2DEC:30E9 (talk) 07:15, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Well provide a source then… Equine-man (talk) 07:17, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ––FormalDude talk 08:13, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

List indexing the table

I suggest adding this "table TOC", a compact list indexing the table. Lots of readers probably just want the actual list of presidents without scrolling through a long table, 12 screens on my desktop. Or they only want to see a few entries like the recent ones, 10+ screens down. The table is 70 times longer than the list on my screen. I added the list but was reverted by Drdpw. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:41, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose proposed additon. We already have the presidents listed, one merely needs to scroll down. GoodDay (talk) 22:59, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Birth and death under name

I suggest adding the president's birth and death under their name like this revision. This is done in most lists of countries' heads of states or governments such as List of prime ministers of Canada, List of presidents of Russia and List of chancellors of Germany, among others. I feel that this list is too bland compared to other lists of countries' leaders. Cyrobyte (talk) 16:30, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - here, at List of vice presidents of the United States & any other List of American officials articles. IMHO, the birth/death dates should be deleted from those other country leaders lists. GoodDay (talk) 16:57, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
• Comment - I'm leaning in favour, but I'm apprehensive. Why is there, if any, significant opposition to adding life and death years? Plenty of officeholder templates use that, implying that such information is helpful for inclusion in such tables. SuperWIKI (talk) 17:00, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Now in favour. Support. SuperWIKI (talk) 12:00, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Comment – List of first ladies of the United States, a featured list has birth and death dates under names. I won't oppose this, but can we explain further how the lifespan of a president is useful for an user who want to see just a list of presidents. And we do have List of presidents of the United States by age. Wouldn't it violate content forking guidelines? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:02, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Support adding birth and death year in small text. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:05, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
• Comment - I would also lean in favor, just because the info is useful without being obtrusive. Generally, more is better, unless it's too much, and I don't think this is too much. (jmho) - wolf 20:11, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Support - just to make it official. - wolf 15:58, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the above. It's not intrusive and provides info. Let's keep it at that, though. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 03:19, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support - I support adding year of birth and year of death (Year only, to avoid cluttering), as the info is useful and would be unobtrusive. Drdpw (talk) 11:33, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - it's been over a week and it would appear that consensus is in support of this edit. Does anyone have any additional comments to make, or object to the edit being re-added? - wolf 23:13, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

• Update - I've re-added the birth/death dates to this article & added the birth/death dates to the List of vice presidents of the United States article. GoodDay (talk) 00:21, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Ford note

@Drdpw: this note (or a variation of) seems like it might a worthwhile addition. Considering the column header is simply: "Election", it's entirely possible, (if not likely), that at least for some people, that will "imply" that Ford was elected.
(ping: Krisgabwoosh) Jmho & Cheers - wolf 00:32, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Ford's situation, is the same as Tyler's, Fillmore's, A. Johnson's & Arthur's terms, as well as T. Roosevelt's, Coolidge's, Truman's & L. Johnson's first terms. All succeeded to a term of office that was established by previous election. GoodDay (talk) 00:51, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

The difference to the examples above is that Tyler, Fillmore, etc. were all elected vice president and so it makes sense to an extent to show the election cycle through which they entered office. For Ford, the situation is unique in that he did not participate in any election cycle as a vice presidential candidate. At least to me, the table seemed to imply that Ford was elected vice president in 1972 in the same way someone like Truman was elected v.p. in '44. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 01:51, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Doesn't matter, he became veep, then prez during the January 20, 1973 to January 20, 1977 presidential/vice presidential term. We handle Ford's (and Rockefeller's) situation the same way, at the veep list article. GoodDay (talk) 01:55, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Good enough for me. Though perhaps a note should be added specifying that by "Election" the column refers to the term of office that election established rather than the election the president was elected in. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 02:02, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

From my understanding of the eight Presidents that died in office, they were all succeeded by a VP that was on the ticket and elected with them. After Agnew resigned, Ford was nominated and confirmed by the Senate, and so he was not elected, as either VP or President. When I saw the note added, it reminded me of the very unique circumstances that lead to Ford assuming the Oval Office. A very singular set of circumstances whereby the man was never elected by the people to President, nor even elected as a VP, where voters understand the possibility that the VP might end up assuming the office of POTUS. And so that is why I thought I would raise the issue here for discussion. Of all the notes we do have in this article (and there are quite a few), this actaully seems to be a worthy addition. (jmho) Cheers guys - wolf 03:58, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Wouldn't the easiest solution be to make the "election" header either Election cycle or {{abbr|Election|Election cycle}}? SSSB (talk) 09:36, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

A hovertitle or an abbr would be my choice. It avoids the need for a lengthy note while clearing the issue. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 22:28, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 October 2021

I would like edit access to this because I would like to make a mock presidental timeline in edit mode but I will not publish these changes Flotushistory (talk) 21:17, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. You can click on the "view source" tab and copy the wikitext into your sandbox if you would like to make test edits. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 21:22, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

States of Presidents

The Wikipedia Article List of speakers of the United States House of Representatives includes a brief statement saying the number of speakers from what states. I think that would be something worth including, but I want to see if there is a consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Viktory02 (talk • contribs) 00:03, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

There is a separate article detailing which presidents are from what state: List of presidents of the United States by home state. This being the case, such a paragraph is not needed in this article. Drdpw (talk) 00:17, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

"I think that would be something worth including" Why? So many times people say "we should include trivia" but never give a reason. What would make that worth including but not, say, including their wives, or hometowns, or jobs, or any other piece of trivia? --Golbez (talk) 01:03, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Agree with Golbez on this. - wolf 19:50, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Lead and citations

I want to reorganize the lead and add citations, and add ALT text to images. Since we need to propose the change on the talk page for consensus first, I'm posting it here. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:09, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

You can't expect to gain support for "reorganize the lead", if you don't tell us how you plan on reorganising. Add citations for details that aren't cited in the table, not objection there. And feel free to add ALT text. SSSB (talk) 10:59, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Agree with SSSB on this. There suddenly seems to be all this need to fix something that doesn't appear to be broken. (imho) - wolf 20:29, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Go ahead with the alt text, but I agree with SSSB that you won't "gain support for [reorganising] if you don't tell us how you plan on [doing so]". Tol (talk | contribs) @ 21:39, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

No issues here, I'll add citations and ALT text soon. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:37, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Why do you want to add these? GoodDay (talk) 16:42, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

As I have said above, currently, most of the lead section is un-cited. I think adding reliable scholarly citations to un-cited facts is an improvement. As to the ALT text, to access the users using the screen reader. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:47, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Just added a few sources, all of those I believe to be reliable. Will add more soon. Do let me know if something is wrong. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:40, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

@Kavyansh.Singh: Jtbc, (in case I missed something), you're not looking to add refs to the lead, are you? Generally, content in the lead doesn't require sourcing as long as it's supported in the body. - wolf 04:56, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild – Yeah, lead usually doesn't require citations, but I don't see most of the statements of lead cited anywhere in the article (including the table). Per MOS:LEADCITE, Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead ... , but the lead section of this article, perhaps most of the list does not repeat the information already states elsewhere in the article. Also, per MOS:LEADCITE, The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:28, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware. Many of us are already of aware of the policies & guidelines that you are nonetheless linking to and citing, at length. Thank you - wolf 07:08, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Sortability

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		Portrait	Name (Birth–Death)	Party		Election	Vice President
1	April 30, 1789 – March 4, 1797		George Washington (1732–1799)		Unaffiliated	1788–89 1792	John Adams
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 Vacant (after Apr. 20, 1812) Elbridge Gerry Vacant (after Nov. 23, 1814)
6	March 4, 1825 – March 4, 1829		John Quincy Adams (1767–1848)		Democratic-Republican National Republican	1824	John C. Calhoun

notes
Notes

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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

@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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

@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)

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)

@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)

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

@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)

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)

@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)

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

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

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)

@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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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)

@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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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)

@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)

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

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)

@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)

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)

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

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

There's a lot of lists within this bar ↓

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

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)

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)

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

@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)

Pre-RfC discussion

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)

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)

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

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

@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)

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

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 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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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.

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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