Talk:List of presidents of the United States/Archive 16

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:


 * 1) Should the lists be sortable? (section)
 * 2) Should the lists' headers contain scope metadata? (section)
 * 3) 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 &#124; contribs) @ 19:52, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

1: Sortability
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

 * Notes

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 &#124; contribs) @ 20:19, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * C is aesthetically acceptable for me. Tol  (talk &#124; contribs) @ 20:48, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * A - maintain status quo. It ain't broke, so don't fix it. GoodDay (talk) 20:50, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Bthen C. Tables should obviously be sortable whenever possible. All columns should be sortable and the duplicate rows aren't a major problem. Reywas92Talk 21:15, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * B then C per Reywas92 and WP:READER. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 21:32, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 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. Alex Eng ( TALK ) 21:55, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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? Alex Eng ( TALK ) 06:39, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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. Alex Eng ( TALK ) 06:14, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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. Alex Eng ( TALK ) 09:08, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * If you don't show/mention the vacancies, then you're leaving out important information. GoodDay (talk) 12:47, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * @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 &#124; contribs) @ 02:22, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * @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 &#124; contribs) @ 19:22, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * C, Sortability is a useful functon for the user. Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:23, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Post-close discussion
, you see a "rough consensus for option B? The following !votes were as follows; Was it the corresponding comments that formed the basis of this consensus? -  wolf  05:35, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 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

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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Post-post-close discussion
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 "Ican 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. - w o lf  16:40, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * We'd be better off undoing the mess that was implemented, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 17:38, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 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. - w o lf  20:14, 14 May 2022 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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. - w o lf  13:40, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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  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)

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? - w o lf  02:50, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I just tried to find out how featured lists of other head of nations address this issue: 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". I'm afraid, this is something which was not considered during the initial RfC. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:50, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

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.


 * Notes, references, and sources


 * Notes


 * References


 * Sources

General

Expert studies

Presidential biographies

News articles

– Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:15, 17 May 2022 (UTC)


 * @Kavyansh.Singh: I'd support something like this. See § Examples (under the collapsed box for Example C) for an example of how to show two colors in one cell. It uses CSS .  Tol  (talk &#124; contribs) @ 21:31, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * # Tol : Thanks a lot for that color suggestion. Full table at User:Kavyansh.Singh/sandbox9, some formatting still left, but it does not has any sorting issues. As of now (20:30, 18 May 2022 (UTC)) nobody has opposed removal of the sorting feature, but I am not sure how to proceed. Can talk-page discussions overturn RfCs, or do we need separate RfC for that? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 20:30, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @Kavyansh.Singh, that looks great to me. If there's broad consensus to overturn the RfC, then it should be fine, but considering that the RfC and the discussions before and after it have been so contentious, I'd recommend opening another RfC to get broader and (hopefully) stronger consensus. Tol  (talk &#124; contribs) @ 20:53, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I am not opposed to removing the sorting feature. I like the table design you're working on in your sandbox. Drdpw (talk) 21:13, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * This suggestion by Kavyansh.Singh seems to solve all our problems. SSSB (talk) 17:01, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree with Drdpw; not opposed to removing the sort feature, but otherwise the set up in Kavyansh.Singh's sandbox seems to work ok. - w o lf  18:37, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Almost irrelevant to this RFC, but in the specific case of JQA I disagree that we should have two colors. He was elected once, representing one party. Changes after that are difficult to source (our footnote even says "sometime in 1824", one would think something as apparently important as a party changing would have a specific date) and ultimately irrelevant. Note them in a footnote, but it has no bearing on the table. Same deal with John Tyler. Lincoln, on the other hand, was specifically elected as a candidate of the National Union Party and that change is correct to note. But not Johnson's change to the Democratic Party - it's undated and not even sourced. --Golbez (talk) 20:19, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Those are all actually very good points. - w o lf  21:08, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

2: Scope metadata
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 &#124; contribs) @ 20:01, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes Scope data is essential per MOS:ACCESS. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:20, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes - Per MOS:ACCESS, no drawbacks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:38, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, gobsmacked this is even being put forth as an RFC. --Golbez (talk) 20:45, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * @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 &#124; 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 &#124; contribs) @ 15:45, 11 December 2021 (UTC))
 * 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)
 * , 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)
 * 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 &#124; contribs) @ 00:33, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * I acknowledge that. Please don't edit my comments — I already apologised for misinterpreting your comment. Tol  (talk &#124; contribs) @ 01:07, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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 &#124; contribs) @ 02:12, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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 &#124; contribs) @ 05:56, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should follow the guidelines yourself. -  wolf  19:51, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 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 &#124; contribs) @ 21:11, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Further discussion on Tol's quote of Thewolfchild moved to collapsed section below Tol  (talk &#124; contribs) @ 15:53, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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 &#124; contribs) @ 21:11, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Might've saved a lot of hassle, if the sentence-in-question had been struck. GoodDay (talk) 02:20, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * No - Maintain status quo. It's ain't broke, so don't fix it. GoodDay (talk) 20:51, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * , 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)
 * I'm not changing my stance. GoodDay (talk) 21:08, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 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. Alex Eng ( TALK ) 21:40, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The RFC closer can make that decision. GoodDay (talk) 22:00, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes If this doesn't meet accessibility needs, then it's broke. Reywas92Talk 21:12, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Yes per MOS and WP:READER. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 21:33, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes clearly. Absent any special exception for this case, accessibility should be respected. Alex Eng ( TALK ) 21:42, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * @Dicklyon: Yes. See the "No" vote by GoodDay (and § Recent edits & reversions, the discussion that prompted this). Tol  (talk &#124; contribs) @ 02:18, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Yes - not sure why this is being fought? SSSB (talk) 09:06, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yep, don't see why not. -  wolf  04:16, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Yes Per all Signed, I Am Chaos (talk) 17:51, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, obviously. '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)

3: Column order
The lists are currently ordered as follows:


 * 1) (Vice) Presidency (number and date range)
 * 2) Portrait
 * 3) Name (and birth/death dates)
 * 4) Party
 * 5) Election
 * 6) 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)
 * Status quo - Don't change anything. It's not broke, so don't fix it. GoodDay (talk) 20:52, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 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. Reywas92Talk 21:11, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Number, portrait and name, per Golbez and Reywas92. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 21:37, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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. Alex Eng ( TALK ) 22:10, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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.  Alex Eng ( TALK ) 06:24, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 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 and  in their !votes, and accepted by, 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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. Reywas92Talk 23:25, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh relax, I didn't "put words in your mouth". And read WP:OSE. -  wolf  01:30, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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. Reywas92Talk 15:09, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Number -> Portrait -> Name -> Term -> Party -> Election -> Vice President(s), per  Alex Eng  and others above. PraiseVivec (talk) 12:55, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

General discussion

 * Pinging all users who participated in previous discussions (GoodDay · Thewolfchild · Drdpw · Golbez · Reywas92 · Kavyansh.Singh · SSSB · Viktory02). Tol  (talk &#124; contribs) @ 19:55, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * So which option is the status quo? GoodDay (talk) 20:28, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * @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 &#124; contribs) @ 20:46, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * @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 &#124; contribs) @ 00:38, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Yes, so that all first-level comments are bullets and all replies are not. Tol  (talk &#124; contribs) @ 01:20, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I applaud the good faith attempt to support accessibility, but you're mistaken in this case. The formatting suggested by 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 ✅, while the mixed style referred to in WP:THREAD is the fourth example ❌. Hope that helps!  Alex Eng ( TALK ) 06:59, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * PLEASE STOP BULLET POINTING responses. It's damned annoying & makes the above discussions confusing. GoodDay (talk) 02:01, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * @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 &#124; contribs) @ 02:17, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Fine, as long as it doesn't leave a row of dots. GoodDay (talk) 02:20, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It doesn't. Tol  (talk &#124; contribs) @ 02:28, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Cool. GoodDay (talk) 05:01, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I lol'ed! Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:11, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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: 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 &#124; contribs) @ 21:17, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Hoping we'll have some 'more' input & also posting, to keep this RFC alive. GoodDay (talk) 02:13, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * why haven't you taken a position on Sortability? GoodDay (talk) 23:23, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the same reason I haven't commented on column order — I don't have much of a preference. Tol  (talk &#124; contribs) @ 00:12, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Closure
I've put in a request for closure, of this RFC. GoodDay (talk) 20:18, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Sounds good, GoodDay. Hopefully this will resolve these issues. Tol  (talk &#124; contribs) @ 21:39, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

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

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)
 * The remaining two discussions have been closed, concluding the RfC. I will work on their implementation now. Tol  (talk &#124; contribs) @ 01:42, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * . Both have now been implemented. Tol  (talk &#124; contribs) @ 02:02, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * @GoodDay: Ah, thanks for reminding me. that too now.  Tol  (talk &#124; contribs) @ 02:29, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I believe that includes both options that passed. GoodDay (talk) 02:45, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * @GoodDay: 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 &#124; contribs) @ 03:34, 28 January 2022 (UTC)


 * @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 &#124; contribs) @ 05:58, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Living presidents
Hi @: I have boldly removed the info about "living" and "dead" presidents, explaining it in this edit summary. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:22, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @: All right then, it appears WP:BRD has been applied; so lets discuss. Why is that information useful and encyclopedic? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:37, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @Kavyansh.Singh: You were citing an apparent consensus that does not exist in the discussion you linked to. This is the reason for the revert. As for the question at hand, the question which presidents are still alive is imho one that many people will want to find an answer to and most likely expect it in Wikipedia (which is why this article is also the No. 1 search result for "how many us presidents are still alive"). Per WP:5P1, "Wikipedia combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers." This is information that can be found in an "almanac" since almanacs are "an annual publication listing a set of current information". To ask for "encyclopedic" alone is misleading since Wikipedia was, is and probably always will contain information that is current and subject to change. That is the whole point of a wiki. As for the "other stuff doesn't exist" argument made by Aza24 above, one has to take into account that former US Presidents are a much more discussed topic than former leaders of other countries (searching "how many prime ministers are still alive" gives you ~90 hits while the same search for US presidents yields ~29 million hits). People simply care much more about Obama or Bush after they left office than May or Major. Regards So  Why  12:45, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @: Thanks for the clarification. The reason why I linked to that AfD was because there were many editors there asserting that the information is trivia. If it was trivia there, it is trivia here. That being said, I don't agree that number of Google search hits is an accurate measure for the importance of any information. It is like comparing pageviews to the vitality of a topic. We have this article as the number 1 search result for "how many us presidents are still alive" solely because this article has that information; that is what the Google search reflects. It does not mean that information is important and the article should have that information. For the curious readers who are specifically looking for this info, it can be easily deduced from the birth and death years mentioned in the list. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:27, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I would argue that the info about living presidents is more useful, and encyclopaedic, than say... List of presidents of the United States with facial hair - or - List of left-handed United States presidents, but we have both those lists, as well as others that chronicle random, personal details of various presidents. I would agree with that part of the reason the separate 'living' list was deleted was because of the 'living' info that is available on this page. (imho) -  w o lf  13:48, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Please note also, that the Living presidents of the United States article was not a page simply listing currently living presidents but instead focused almost entirely on which presidents were alive between a new president's inauguration and the next president's death or between a death and the next inauguration. That is completely different and I don't think the consensus from that AFD really can be summarized as "we should not mention living presidents anywhere". Even the nominator of that AFD, RandomCanadian, argued that we don't need that list for currently living presidents because that information "could be briefly mentioned in the actual list of US presidents" and so did a few others. Plus, I would point to Articles for deletion/Living Presidents of the United States and the sources especially mentioned by Edison that show that notable sources regularly discuss this topic. Regards So  Why  15:40, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * All right, it appears that the broad consensus here is against that edit; I humbly accept that. Would appreciate if you all can give your views for the section below as well. Thanks! – — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kavyansh.Singh (talk • contribs) 15:49, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * , you have offered a comprehensive rationale for inclusion, but do you have any ideas on how it might be better integrated into the lead? A fifth paragraph of just two sentences appears choppy and out of place. Aza24 (talk) 17:49, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @Aza24: I don't think it is much of a problem, but it could probably be added to the end of the first paragraph. Regards So  Why  18:00, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

FL?
I looked at the 2021 peer review and implemented some of the edits in it. Now the article seems fairly well structured according to the criteria: Do you agree that, after 13 years, is good enough to be re-nominated for FL status?  interstate five   16:04, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Prose: ✅ Looks good.
 * Lead: ✅ Great!
 * Comprehensiveness: ✅ Good for all three.
 * Structure: ✅ Yep.
 * Style: ✅ Yea.
 * Stability: ✅ Yes.
 * I do think that the list is good enough, but it should not be nominated for FL status until we have a consensus for the structure of the list and the lead image . It is usually the editors who have worked on the list nominate it for FL status, drive-by nominations are not appreciated. That being said, I am interested in nominating it for FL status and have worked on the citations. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:14, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I know about drive-by nominations and how they are discouraged, but I asked and the answer was that an editor who has worked little on the article can still nominate for FL if they ask editors who frequent the article. That is what I am doing.  interstate five   21:16, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't mean to discourage you, but currently, the structure and style criteria are not fulfilled as there is an ongoing discussion regarding it. That even makes stability criteria just partly fulfilled. Also, there are few formatting changes left, which means that it should not be nominated in the current status. That being said, the list definitely has potential to be a FL and I'll keep working on the remaining issues. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:20, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Lead image
The infobox from the lead was (correctly) removed by. Any suggestions what should be the lead image, or should we have one? I suggested a collage of 3 "important" presidents (Washington, Lincoln, and FDR), along with the current president (example pictured). What else? Just the current president? The White House? Mount Rushmore? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:06, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I would support the image collage, which provides a widely agreed view of the most important presidents and has both political-party diversity and historical diversity. This would follow the practice of many similar lists at FL, showing a clear precedent for some an approach. I would distantly support Mount Rushmore for similar reasons, but the choices of presidents there is imo not as historically objective in importance, most blatantly by the inclusion of T Roosevelt over FDR (though to be fair to the sculptor FDR had not been president at that point). Aza24 (talk) 17:55, 23 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I think the example from List of prime ministers of the United Kingdom (a featured list) can be adapted here, although I'm not sure whether four is the right number. Possibly six makes more sense, adding Cleveland as the only president to appear twice and Obama as the first African-American president? See the mock-up I made. Regards So  Why  17:57, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I will support which ever (4 or 6) gets a consensus, though I am concerned that including Obama as also a recent Democrat over recent Republications might result in objections from others. Aza24 (talk) 18:42, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Either may work, but my preference would be 4, not just because of the above mentioned reason by Aza24, but also because the 4 images collage has presidents from 4 difference centuries (18th, 19th, 20th, 21st) representing the officeholders in different periods of time. The 6 one has 2 presidents from 19th century, and 2 presidents from the last 10 years, which might be a bit recentism. Still, either may work if it gets consensus. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:47, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I didn't really consider those things, I just thought it might be good to have more examples of presidents who are especially notable. We could replace Obama with Nixon who was the only one to resign in office? Unlike in the UK, both serving non-consecutive terms and resigning are unique occurrences (so far). I'm open to other suggestions as well. Regards So  Why  19:29, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * NO LEAD IMAGE, please. We've enough images on this & its corresponding veep list article. Biden's lead image at the President of the United States article, is enough. GoodDay (talk) 22:24, 23 May 2022 (UTC)


 * How about The White House? Or Mount Rushmore? Or the full POTUS line-up at the Hall of Presidents from Disney World? Or... just leave it at is. There is already an image of every single president, why would the page need any more? - w o lf  00:34, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Because the lead image is the first thing a reader sees. It makes visual appeal, and it is common for articles to have a lead image (per WP:LEADIMAGE). As mentioned above, similar lists for other countries have a collage in the lead; it gives a broad outline of the list to the reader. I can't think of any possible disadvantage to a reader if this list has a lead image. Can you specify a few? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:40, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Were the lead section brief, I would be fine with no lead image, as images abound in the article. (I am not moved much by the argument: "similar lists for other countries have a collage in the lead.") In this instance, however, a list article with a large lead section, some sort of lead image or image collage would visual appeal. So, how best to give a natural and appropriate representation of the topic? For comparison, List of burial places ... uses a picture of Washington's Tomb at the U.S. Capitol; List of ... died in office has an image collage of the eight who died in office plus the (contemporary) presidential seal, but then no portraits in the body. Historical rankings of ... uses Mt. Rushmore. Of the two image collages suggested above, I like the 4-person set which highlights the nation's three historically most highly regarded presidents plus the current president. More than this number and the gallery could appear more like a trivia collage rather than a lead image. Regarding single images, Mt. Rushmore could work here, as could the White House. Another option (drawing upon the Hall of Presidents image) is to use a "most living presidents" group photo. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 15:54, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I would vote in favor of the White House. I'm not a big fan of collages like this because it duplicates the same images in the lead and table, but there should be some image. Reywas92Talk 01:11, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * There are numerous group photos of various presidents in the Commons. A photo of, for example, George H. W. Bush, George W. Bush, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama could work. Drdpw (talk) 03:42, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * We already have images of 45 people in this article. Why clutter it by adding duplicates of some of them, at the top? GoodDay (talk) 09:12, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Citations for life years
Surely you don't need citations for life years (eg for 1732-1799) in the table itself? It just makes the white space in the cell bigger. Rousillon (talk) 00:06, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It is the best practice to have a citation for everything on WP, and the only thing affecting the white space of the cell is the size of the portraits. If anything, those citations are reducing the whitespace by filling it with a reference. Aza24 (talk) 00:41, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Not every single fact needs to be individually cited. If we can cite all this information to a single or few references, we should do so, in the column header. --Golbez (talk) 04:10, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * If have life years in the table, they need to be cited, whether individually or in the column header. And I don't see how the individual citations are increasing the white space. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:19, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree with the OP and Golbez. This is a list article, and there has been a long-standing, widely accepted practice across the project on such articles that when list entries with basic facts are linked to a parent article, then additional refs aren't usually required. For example, the Washington entry has the dates 1732-1799, and the entry is linked to the bio on Washington, which also has those dates and supports them with refs there, which is usually accepted as sufficient. That said, if there is a way to help fill up needless whitespace, then why not use it. But refs are not absolutely required. (JMHO) - w o lf  05:42, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I respect your viewpoint but I have to humbly disagree. A long standing, widely accepted practice does not mean it is a correct practice. Wikipedia:Verifiability states: "All content must be verifiable" . The same policy also states not to use "articles from Wikipedia ... as sources since Wikipedia is considered as a user-generated source ... Content from a Wikipedia article is not considered reliable unless it is backed up by citing reliable sources. Confirm that these sources support the content, then use them directly." So this makes me believe that references are absolutely required, whether individual citations or a single source supporting all of that. Regardless, the citations are reducing the whitespace. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:11, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Doesn't mean it's incorrect either. Wp:v is satisfied by the linked article as long as the specific content in that article is supported. The linked article itself is not being used as ref (even though that is permitted per wp:cw), it's being used as a wikilink to support a table entry which, as I said, is a widely used practice, and one interpretation of a guideline doesn't necessarily negate all that. But that said, I suspect we'll have to agree to disagree. - w o lf  21:05, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * No, we certainly don't need to have a source for the birth/death dates. The entries are linked to their respective bio articles. GoodDay (talk) 21:26, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It is worth noting that the election years are supported by the ANB refs, and nothing else, so we do in fact need them. Aza24 (talk) 03:18, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, ANB supports election years, the birth years and the death years. And I think similar kind of citations exist in the List of vice presidents of the United States as well (that was before I added citations in the article.) – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 03:22, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Obama portrait
All the presidents portraits on this page are the same as their individual pages, except for Obama. XDPOGCHAMPEPEGA (talk) 03:08, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose change - There was an RfC on this last year, and a discussion just before that, and another discussion before that and another one before that. That's just discussions that are specific to Obama, and only as far back as archive page ten. In other words, there are likely many more dicussions that cover this image as well, and the point of all this is that the image has been dicussed ad nauseum, and the current image is the one that a majority of editors have come to a consensus on, more than once. Despite all that, you still tried to change the image yourself last March. You were reverted, and directed to the talk page. You didn't come here, at least then, but here you are now, so let me ask: why do you think that whatever images are being used on other President's pages, means we need to change this one? Does uniformity with other articles somehow make the image better? Shouldn't we judge the image itself on it's own merits, like others have, and abide by the consensus that they came to? I think the current image is fine and does not need to be changed. (jmho) - w o lf  06:27, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't mind changing to that portrait, but your reasoning is poor. Other portraits matching is nothing more than coincidence. SSSB (talk) 11:44, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 July 2022
In the second sentence, please change "The office holder" to "The officeholder" since the latter is more common. Note that Wiktionary gives "officeholder" as primary; https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/officeholder lists "office holder" as an alternative form, and https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/office_holder merely says that it's an alternative form of "officeholder" without giving any definitions, etymologies, etc. 49.198.51.54 (talk) 19:00, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ - w o lf  21:46, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Biden in introduction
Why is Biden not mentioned in the introduction? He only appears three times in the whole article (as VP on the Obama line, on his own line, and in a citation), in contrast with the five appearances of William Henry Harrison, who basically didn't do anything as president except triggering the Tyler precedent. Living former presidents are mentioned in the introduction, but not the living current. I think "There are five living former presidents:" ought to be replaced with something like "The current president is Joe Biden. There are five living former presidents:"  49.198.51.54 (talk) 19:08, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ SSSB (talk) 09:09, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Request for comments: table structure and the lead image
This request for comments is broadly for two question relating to this list: Both these issues have been previously discussed in above section, § Post-post-close discussion and § Lead image. There is no clear consensus among the talk page watchers for the lead image, and the table structure needs a broad discussion.
 * 1) the table structure
 * 2) the lead image.

– Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:23, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

1: Table structure
In December 2021, a RfC was started for various questions regarding this list, including the issue of table sortability. The discussion was closed in early 2022 with a rough consensus to implement sortability without other modifications in the table. A few editors, however, noted that sortability without other modifications causes the feature to duplicate presidents (as depicted in this image). The last month, an alternative table structure was proposed by me, which is roughly a combination of the three examples proposed in the previous RfC and it does not duplicate presidents. It was suggested that a RfC be started to have a broad discussion on the issue.

User:Kavyansh.Singh/sandbox9

Should the table structure be switched to the alternative table proposed? (Yes or No)

– Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:23, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Discussion–1

 * Change it back here & at List of vice presidents of the United States to the way it was, before the Dec 2021 RFC. GoodDay (talk) 14:52, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes this avoids all the problems of sortability (namely duplicate cells). Although we need sortability on the number column so that users can revert to the default order without refreshing the page. SSSB (talk) 14:26, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Done, thanks for the suggestion. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:37, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes. Sortability is useful, and this avoids the duplicate problem found in the current table. Tol  (talk &#124; contribs) @ 16:15, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes or No I don't think duplication when sorting is that big a problem but would support this. Sortability needs to be maintained. Reywas92Talk 19:51, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes. Allows for sorting where useful, and avoids the duplication issues otherwise present. Drdpw (talk) 22:54, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * No, treating the VP cells that way makes it semantically jumbly, and I would like input from someone more familiar with screen readers if they would handle that correctly. --Golbez (talk) 03:15, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes. I think solving the duplication bug when sorting is a step in the right direction.  Other formatting issues can be addressed later.  Useitorloseit (talk) 21:25, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

2: Lead image
This table had a series box,, in the lead. It was recently (correctly) removed as this list is not a part of that series box. Since, there is no broad consensus whether the lead should have an image, and if so, which one. Which of the following option should the list adopt?
 * A: No lead image (status quo)
 * Should have a lead image (examples pictured below):
 * B: collage of 4 presidents
 * C: the White House
 * D: Mount Rushmore
 * E: group picture of presidents
 * F: anything else?


 * B — collage of 3 presidents considered "important" along with the current officeholder.


 * C — The White House


 * D — Mount Rushmore


 * E — Group picture of presidents

– Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:23, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * question re: option "B", are people !voting for those particular 4 guys? Or are they just !voting for the collage with the images to be determined via another discussion, if consensus lands on "B"? (or "F" for a 6-pak instead of a 4-pak?) - w o lf 00:33, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I think they are primary voting for a collage of 4 presidents will all those presidents shown in the example. If anyone had any issue with those four mentioned, they can clarify in their vote, but I don't think anyone would as those 3 "important" and considered important almost universally. As you say in the general discussion, Historical rankings of presidents of the United States might be a good tool, but I think we should considered just the scholar surveys, as polls seem to have a bit WP:Recentism. Of the various scholar surveys provided there, almost all have Washington, Lincoln, and F. Roosevelt in the top three. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 03:38, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it should be made clear that a !vote for "B" is specifically for those 4 four guys. The first 3 are strong candidates, but I don't see why Biden would automatically be included. People should specify which 4 (or 6) they want if they select the collage option. (imo) - w o lf 07:36, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Discussion–2

 * A - We don't need any lead image for this article. We already have one at President of the United States. PS - Why is the List of vice presidents of the United States being ignored, concerning this topic? GoodDay (talk) 14:53, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * B per WP:LEADIMAGE. Seems the most relevant and of the most quality.  interstate five   18:00, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * B seems the best per WP:LEADIMAGE. Otherwise E. I oppose C, D and I strongly oppose option A. SSSB (talk) 14:31, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * To clarify (following minor altercation of question). I'm not necessarily supporting (or opposing) that selection, just support a collage of several presidents. (I would argue that the collage should be first, incumbent and two most famous, and would potentially argue that lincoln and FDR aren't the most famous, but that is something I think is best discussed later, if I can be bothered at all) SSSB (talk) 18:41, 20 June 2022 (UTC)


 * B seems the best choice in my opinion. SuperWIKI (talk) 16:02, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * C A relevant photo that doesn't duplicate images or particular individuals. Reywas92Talk 19:53, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * C, then in order of preference: D, B/F (4-pak/6-pak). Added comments below as well. - w o lf  00:33, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support B (with GW, Lincoln, FDR and incumbent) as the standard for lists like these, which illustrates a good and even variety. Support C as a relevant photo with variety. Strongly oppose no image, which would make the huge swath of text that is the lead even more unappealing. Aza24 (talk) 03:21, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * C or B. Definitely needs a lead image with how long the lead is IMO.  ミラー強斗武   (StG88ぬ会話) 19:12, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * A - No lead image. Less is more. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 16:15, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * A - Due to the nature of this article being a list with pictures of everyone listed, adding a lead image seems unnecessary and potentially introduces POV issues. Useitorloseit (talk) 21:34, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * E or D or C. A single picture, such as one of these three, would enhance the article lead nicely. A collage on the other hand, given that all the people listed are pictured, seems redundant. Drdpw (talk) 22:18, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

General discussion.

 * Pinging all those involved in the previous two discussions: . Apologies if I accidentally missed anyone. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:30, 18 June 2022 (UTC)


 * While I haven't actually contributed to this discussion, I have been following it closely due fellow user Thewolfchild's active participation. May I confirm, aside from list style and portraits for individual presidents, that there is no real disagreement on the page regarding the actual information? As there are no disputed presidents, the 46 (excluding Cleveland's 2nd term) in the list seems pretty cut and dry. SuperWIKI (talk) 16:08, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

For goodness sakes, we've got enough images in this article. GoodDay (talk) 16:25, 19 June 2022 (UTC)


 * This list article, which is full of images, has gone for quite some time without a lead image, so I can see the argument of those against an image. That said, I tend to favor having an image in the lead of articles, but it depends on which image(s). As there are already images of every President, there is a strong case for the The White House, which is a symbol of the Presidency, without highlighting any particular President, (or party). After that, a very good case could be made for Mount Rushmore, again another symbol, with 4 Presidents that are very highly regarded. If we were to do a collage of 4 (or even 6), we could rightfully go with Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln and T.Roosevelt. In the case of a 6-pak, the best additonal choices would be F.Roosevelt and say... Obama. He is fairly highly ranked and is certainly more notable for being the first Black President, than say, Cleveland for having the quirk of being #22 and #24 (so he was elected twice... big deal, so has almost half the others), and certainly more worthy of inclusion than Biden, just because he's the incumbent (and could still fail spectacularly). I think that if we were to go with a collage, the Historical rankings of presidents of the United States is a good tool to use for decision making, (except for Truman, I don't like Truman). Good cases could also be made for Eisenhower, Kennedy and Reagan. (JMHO) - w o lf  00:33, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I have listed this discussion for closure at Closure requests. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:54, 25 July 2022 (UTC)