Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of Presidents of the United States


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   keep. - Philippe 19:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Timeline of Presidents of the United States

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Not even an article, just a huge, unwieldy table consisting entirely of information that can be found elsewhere in much better form. Crazy Legs  KC  04:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC) C- 08:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * KeepIt might not look that great but it serves its purpose and it is something that I can see people using everyday. CelesJalee (talk) 05:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep unweildy, yes... but I actually found it interesting and useful.--Paul McDonald (talk) 05:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Your head asplode...I mean KEEP This list is awesome. The table could do to be narrower, so FF's side scroll bar doesn't come up, but I don't know enough to fiddle.  Doesn't violate a policy or guideline I know of. Protonk (talk) 05:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Definitely needs some tinkering, but it's not a bad idea for a list. Let someone try to fix it, rather than delete it entirely. I'm sure there are situations in which one will want to know which presidents were alive at a given point in time. Zagalejo^^^ 06:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep This needs major reworking to make it usable on most computers, but the information is useful and unwieldy for some future editor or user to reconstruct from the beginning. [Trivial example of possible usefulness: which ex-Presidents were alive during a President's term, and which future Presidents?] Some thought needs to go into how to make it work better (for example, as I said on the article's talk page, flipping it would allow names of any length while keeping narrower columns/rows of equal size). Mend it, don't end it. Shakescene (talk) 08:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep But only on the understanding that it requires an enormous amount of work to make it visually comprehensible and understandable, and that there is an expectation that this is going to done: The width is much too large; the colours of the different bars are nowhere explained (which goes against comprehensibility). Some of the ideas found in experts who are concerned with the effective visual display of information need to be taken on board with this. (look for work by Edward Tufte and others in his field.) It may help if the timeline was placed on its side (i.e., rotated through 90 degrees), because then the bars would not have to be so thick to allow the written labels to be placed within them.  DDStretch    (talk)  08:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The colors are explained in the legend.-- aBSuRDiST -T ☺
 * I am sorry, but all the colours are not explained in the legend, once one can locate and guess what the legend is supposed to be, that is. First of all, there is no clear indication of just what is the legend. A key or legend should be clearly labelled as such, and the format of thsi timeline precludes this. Second, not all the colours are explained in what I take to be the legend, because the colour of the bar prior to a person becoming a president and the colour of the bar after their term(s) in office is not given. Indeed, if I have made some mistakes in my interpretation of this, it is sufficient reason to justify my conclusion that there are serious presentational issues with this timeline chart. It really is a sub-standard attempt at a clear and self-explanatory chart, even if others think its purpose is good. If my students had turned in work like this, it would have required serious advice being given to them, and I would certainly have used this example in one of the academic papers I gave over the years concerning adequate displays of information in the form of graphs and charts. Take it from me, it is of a poor quality.  DDStretch    (talk)  09:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Lol. I was just about to post "Dude, it isn't like this has to be Edward Tufte" and you've got it right there.  I agree with you that the list could better be turned on its side.  I'll see if I can make that happen. Protonk (talk) 15:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that too much attention to the finer design issues might be counter-productive, but there are certain things that are needed to produce an adequate chart, and such things are given in many books and instructional material about the design and presentation of information in graphs and charts. Furthermore, if an attempt is going to be made to get this up to GA or FA status in the future, one needs to be able to improve on what is there. In this respect, the issues I raised above are definitely in need of attention to produce an adequate fit-for-purpose chart: The orientation of the chart and the clarity and adequate indication of the key to all the colours used, as pointed out above, are necessary. Unless they are attended to, or at least a commitment is made to attend to them, it is arguable whether this article in its present state is worth keeping.  DDStretch    (talk)  06:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * First of all, the fact that an article can be improved is not grounds for deleting it. Second, I actually make my living communicating visually, and some things aren't easy to communicate visually in a given medium. In this case there are trade-offs between orientation, font size, the limitations of most screens, color choice (ideally, people who have difficulty differentiating colors should be able to make sense of it, and it should be ok printed in black and white), etc. It's far from ideal that you have to rely on horizontal and vertical scroll bars to find your way around, but there is a color legend at an obvious place. I'll look into ways of improving it (of course). --Leifern (talk) 10:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If you look, I was not advocating deletion. I was merely saying that the chart needed to be improved. Furthermore, you have not addressed the issue of the colour legend being incomplete which I raised previously. You are correct in mentioning trade-offs, but I think the legend is not in an obvious place and is not signalled by use of the label "Legend" or "Key", but is squashed up at the right hand side of the chart itself. This really is not ideal. Just accept what you stated that "some things aren't easy to communicate visually in a given medium", and hence, that sometimes views of others, not all of whom are ignorant of the communication issues you mention, can assist in getting things improved.  DDStretch    (talk)  10:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep as awesome.-- aBSuRDiST -T ☺ C- 08:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Would be much, much easier, smaller, and more versatile as an image.  weburiedoursecretsinthegarden  11:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment It is customary to notify the principal editor (if one exists) or creator of an article when nominating it for deletion. I have nominated notified the creator (and asked him if he can move this into a horizontal table, as it is beyond my ken). Protonk (talk) 16:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You nominated the editor? For deletion? I know the table breaks browsers, but that seems a little extreme! Or did you mean notified? ;-)  Plasticup  T / C  17:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh my. ....Uhhh....yeah! Scorch the earth, baby! :) Protonk (talk) 17:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Useful encloypedic information.  Needs a lot of work but that's no reason to delete. Dpmuk (talk) 16:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep: That table is one of the greatest things I have seen. When I get home tonight I am going to crank up my resolution and enjoy it properly. Also, encyclopedic etc.  Plasticup  T / C  17:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep but rotate 90 degrees to make it legible--CastAStone//₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€ 17:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  17:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - and TOH to Protonk for notifying me. I created it and don't regret it still think it's useful and interesting. It took a bit of effort, and so I did check to see if the information was summarized elsewhere on Wikipedia. I will look into rotating it, but need to find the original file first. FWIW, I did debate whether it was better horizontal or vertical when I created it. --Leifern (talk) 22:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.