Talk:Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

Timeline issue
The timeline adds value by showing us which military positions each CJCS held prior to becoming CJCS, and the track record for where each CJCS comes from. I do not recall it being strictly for political officeholders. Other U.S. military position pages like Commandant of the Marine Corps and Chief of Staff of the United States Army also have similar timelines, and I don't see any problem with them either. Pinging to make them aware and find consensus. SuperWIKI (talk) 03:20, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I support this. Garuda28 (talk) 04:45, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * , Well I only saw it about political appointments and when they are from different political parties that is noted by different color, or when officeholders, presidents, kings etc get many years at position or different time, so to be noted at a timeline, that I understand, and that is ok. "Other U.S. military position pages like Commandant of the Marine Corps and Chief of Staff of the United States Army" that is even more crazy as they are from the same branch lollolo. Hmmmm there is already huge and detailed table so there needs to be some confusing timeline also. Aham ok, if you says I accept. Also I just checked all timelines added by the same user. Hmmm 178.223.1.23 (talk) 06:27, 2 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I also support what SuperWIKI said on this issue. I see no valid reason to limit the use of timelines to political officeholders, since they can be applied elsewhere as well. Next, I am the user who started adding them to military-related articles, after I saw them being used at this article and two others (Commandant of the Marine Corps and Chief of Staff of the United States Army). The IP user reverted some of the timelines that I added; I don't think its correct at all to do that, but I have no intention to restore them back, until consensus is reached here. —Sundostund (talk) 09:20, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Imagine to make timeline and all persons came from the same branch and spend more or less similar time in position (I can understand one person 25 years other 5 to can be noted in timeline like huge differences as it happens more often about monarchs and political positions), and there is already detailed table with clear years in position, noted branch and all. Totally redundant. When I saw that I was lol. No point in that at all. Just makes articles bigger without any valid reason. Also here should be some editors who could put some opinion about this without being involved into timelines, to put opinion are they really useful in all cases or nop? That (Commandant of the Marine Corps and Chief of Staff of the United States Army) is one example of total redundancy. Also keep on mind this is not a prof.journal, blog, or something made just for people deep inside topic, it is for a general public 178.223.1.23 (talk) 13:05, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * None of this is a valid argument for removal. - w o lf  19:11, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, but I didn't hear any valid argument about why to stay and what is value of those timelines to general readers. Or maybe I don't get some internal closed group rules, in that case I apologize.178.223.1.23 (talk) 20:12, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The issues of whether or not the officeholders belonged to the same military branch, and the amount of time they served in the position, are completely irrelevant for the existence of timelines. I see timelines as a helpful and legitimate part of graphic presentation in articles (political and military ones alike), and so far, I didn't hear anything to convince me otherwise... According to WP:BRD, and what I saw in this discussion so far, I am restoring several timelines that the IP user removed. The final status of those timelines (which I added) should be tied to the status of timelines on American military articles, which is discussed here, as well as the timeline on Chief of the Defence Staff (United Kingdom). —Sundostund (talk) 20:41, 2 August 2022 (UTC)