Talk:List of presidents of the United States: Difference between revisions

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

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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

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

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

view · edit Frequently asked questions This section is here to provide answers to some questions that have been previously discussed on this talk page. Note: This FAQ is only here to let people know that these points have previously been addressed, not to prevent any further discussion of these issues. To view an explanation to the answer, click the [show] link to the right of the question. General Concerns and Questions Q1: John Hanson was actually the first president. A1: John Hanson was the first President of the Continental Congress to serve a term under the Articles of Confederation. This office is different from President of the United States, which was only created after the US Constitution took effect in 1789. Related Talk discussions: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5] Q2: __________ was acting president for a short time, why isn't he on the list? A2: A period during which a vice-president or other person temporarily becomes Acting President under the Twenty-fifth Amendment is not a presidency, because the president remains in office during such a period. Related Talk discussions: [6], [7], [8] Q3: Grover Cleveland is listed twice, William McKinley was actually the 24th president. A3: Cleveland served two non-consecutive terms, so while McKinley was in fact the 24th person to serve as president, Cleveland was both the 22nd and 24th president. Or another way: the next president after Benjamin Harrison was the 24th president. It should also be noted that almost all reference materials enumerate Cleveland in this way. Related Talk discussions: [9], [10], [11], [12] Q4: Harry Truman's middle name was "S". Since it's not an initial, it should not have the period after it. A4: Harry Truman's middle name was in fact S; however, most reference materials still use the period. Truman himself signed his own name as "Harry S. Truman". Both with or without the period may be regarded as correct. Related Talk discussions: [13], [14], [15], [16] Q5: Democratic is an adjective. Presidents of this party should be listed as the noun, "Democrat". A5: The correct name of the political party is the Democratic Party. In this case, the adjective is used to describe the party, which is what the list is showing. Note that Democrat Party can be seen as an epithet - see Democrat Party (epithet). Related Talk discussions: [17] Q6: Please add another column to the list for ___________. A6: Every effort was made to show the most sought-after information in a concise table. Those interested in president lists based on other criteria should see Template:Lists of US Presidents and Vice Presidents. Related Talk discussions: [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24] Q7: I have an issue with one of the pictures used. A7: It is recommended that the same picture from the president's individual article infobox be used on this list by default. However, any clear view of the face will work since the pictures are so small. Keep in mind that some images on external sites may be subject to copyright, and therefore difficult to bring into Wikipedia. If you have a specific concern about an image, feel free to discuss it here. Related Talk discussions: [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37]

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

	List of presidents of the United States is a former featured list. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page and why it was removed. If it has improved again to featured list standard, you may renominate the article to become a featured list.
Article milestones Date Process Result June 15, 2005 Featured list candidate Promoted October 30, 2008 Featured list removal candidate Demoted June 26, 2009 Featured list candidate Not promoted
Current status: Former featured list

List of presidents of the United States (final version) received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which on 3 March 2021 was archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Politics and Government List‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles List This article has been rated as List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as High-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Lists List‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles List This article has been rated as List-class on the project's quality scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics: American List‑class Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles List This article has been rated as List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Top-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States: Presidents / Government List‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles List This article has been rated as List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject United States Presidents (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Top-importance).

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which is a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully.

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

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 7 times. The weeks in which this happened: January 20 to 26, 2013 February 8 to 14, 2015 November 6 to 12, 2016 January 15 to 21, 2017 November 1 to 7, 2020 November 8 to 14, 2020 January 17 to 23, 2021

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

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

---

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

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

notes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There's a lot of lists within this bar ↓

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

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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

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

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

---

Moved from User talk:Tol/sandbox

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: History and geography Politics, government, and law When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

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

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

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

• C (preferably), then A. Option C is my top choice because it can make the list sortable without the problems with B. Associated officeholders (VPs in the list of presidents and vice versa) aren't the topic of the list, and don't need merged cells. One row per president (on the list of presidents) or VP (on the list of VPs) makes sense and doesn't come with the same problems in sorting that option B does. As for why it should be sortable, sorting by name or party would be helpful to find a president without knowing its number, and the featured list criteria also say that lists in tables should be sortable where helpful. In this case, it is helpful, because it lets a reader easily sort the table into a list of (vice) presidents in alphabetical order or by party. I prefer option A over option B, because sorting a table with merged cells produces duplicate rows. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 20:19, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• B. Works fine. We can easily provide sorting, and for the very few people whom that is useful for, we can be fine with it being a little ugly. I mean, I see the options this way: A is acceptable aesthetically but lacks sorting; B is acceptable aesthetically for 99% of users, and a little wonky for the 1% who want to sort; C is unacceptable aesthetically for 100% of users, and still wonky for that 1% who want to sort. --Golbez (talk) 20:44, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  C is aesthetically acceptable for me. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 20:48, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• A - maintain status quo. It ain't broke, so don't fix it. GoodDay (talk) 20:50, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• B followed by C I like sortability, and think veeps should be a sortable field. Having veeps on multiple rows if they served multiple presidents and presidents having multiple rows if they had more than one veep (or a veep and a vacancy) is fine with me. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:54, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Bthen C. Tables should obviously be sortable whenever possible. All columns should be sortable and the duplicate rows aren't a major problem. Reywas92^Talk 21:15, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• B then C per Reywas92 and WP:READER. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:32, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• C is highly preferable, and then probably B. We don't lose much (if anything) by consolidating presidencies into single rows. This is, after all, a list of presidents. It is not a list of presidential terms. We can have the vice presidents, political parties, and election years in a single cell per column associated with their respective presidents. AlexEng^(TALK) 21:55, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• A - since both B and C look awful. If there was another option, I would consider it as I'm usually in favour of sorting, but if the only choices are either; adding a bunch of duplicate rows & cells or, lumping a bunch of VPs and "vacancies" together into single cells and then adding a lonnng list of notes to clarify... I'll stick with the status quo. - wolf 23:43, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Why do we actually need a list of vacancies at all? Who cares? The column title is "Vice President" and it should include a list of vice presidents, not the specific timelines for their vice presidency. It's offtopic cruft for this article and belongs elsewhere. Having a vice president column is borderline appropriate in the first place. Why not list Speaker of the House and Chief Justice while we're at it? AlexEng^(TALK) 06:39, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Because if we're including their vice presidents, we also need to point out when there wasn't a vice president. And the others make no sense for several reasons, the main of which being that they aren't in the executive, and the VP is [at least now] elected on the same ticket. --Golbez (talk) 17:05, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• A is fine by me. Why would someone want a different sort on these sequential presidents? I don't see the obviousness implied in the argument "Tables should obviously be sortable whenever possible", so please explain. Dicklyon (talk) 01:33, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Dicklyon: Well, my argument, at the very least, is that it's just nice. Like I said in my comment/!vote above, "the featured list criteria also say that lists in tables should be sortable where helpful. In this case, it is helpful, because it lets a reader easily sort the table into a list of (vice) presidents in alphabetical order or by party." Tol (talk | contribs) @ 02:22, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• A or C, the problem with B is that sorting immediatly breaks the table, we now have four Madisons. It makes it significantly harder to interpret the table, and I don't see how being able to sort by vice-presidents is advantagous, if people want to sort vice-presidents, go to that list. I would even argue that vice presidents shouldn't be on this list. The problem with C is that it looks a little WP:SEAOFBLUEy on mobile (I think). I also see little advantage with sorting, and am therefore happy to not have it as an option. SSSB (talk) 09:23, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• B or C, with little preference between the two. The sortability is handy, and there are a number of use-cases where it might be helpful to look at each president by political party, or view presidents that had the same vice president and the like. I don't mind that B can make the list ugly, but I respect that it can bother others, so either sortable is fine with me. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:00, 10 December 2021 (UTC) (Summoned by bot)[reply]

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)?

• Yes. The Manual of Style on accessibility recommends using header scope. Scope data adds more semantic information to the HTML, which makes the table more accessible to screen readers. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 20:01, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes Scope data is essential per MOS:ACCESS. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:20, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes - Per MOS:ACCESS, no drawbacks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:38, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, gobsmacked this is even being put forth as an RFC. --Golbez (talk) 20:45, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Golbez: In § Recent edits & reversions, Thewolfchild did not "believe [my] changes were necessary or an improvement", and GoodDay said that it was a "Procedural revert, as [I (Tol)] didn't get a consensus at this talkpage, for the change [I] made", and that I should "Open up an RFC" — so I did. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 20:54, 9 December 2021 (UTC) (Edit: Thewolfchild has stated that the quote was not directed at addition of column scope. I misunderstood what the quoted comment was directed at, and retract my statement that "Thewolfchild did not 'believe [my] changes were necessary or an improvement'" with regard to column scope. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 15:45, 11 December 2021 (UTC))[reply]

  And I appreciate that, but there was no reason to go this far. If a single user is crusading against basic accessibility improvements, the solution is to bring that user's unreasonable demands to the wider community, not to bow to their whim. --Golbez (talk) 21:03, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Tol:, why have you mentioned me here when my edit had nothing to with your changes to metadata? I reverted changes you made to text in the lead, so you can strike the reference to me above. - wolf 21:43, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  My apologies. While you did only revert my lead changes, I thought your comment that I quoted was directed at all of my changes. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 00:33, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, clearly you thought wrong. My edit only reverted your changes to the lead and my summary made no mention of any edits you made to table markup. - wolf 01:04, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I acknowledge that. Please don't edit my comments — I already apologised for misinterpreting your comment. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 01:07, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Yet you edit other's comments? You shouldn't have posted those remarks in the first place, they are disingenuous and a mischaracterization, but further, you should've struck them when it was first brought to your attention, otherwise your "apology" rings hollow. You can't claim to regret offending someone, while at the same time continuing to offend them. - wolf 01:48, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I edit others' comments in compliance with WP:TPO. Usually, this falls under "Attributing unsigned comments", "Fixing format errors" (particularly "fixing list markup (to avoid disruption of screen readers, for instance)"), and "Fixing links". The guideline says that "Striking out text ... constitutes a change in meaning. It should be done only by the user who wrote it, or as otherwise provided in this talk page guideline." The only reason that the guideline provides to strike another user's comment is when it was made by "made by blocked sock puppets". Please do not strike out text in my comment again. I am explicitly stating that I misunderstood your comment (for the third time here), but do not wish to strike part of my comment. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 02:12, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I disagree, and regardless if you "misunderstood" or not, you now know, explicitly, that your comment is factually incorrect. By restoring it (repeatedly no less), you are now intentionally posting an accusation you know to to be wrong. Personally I think it's obnoxious behaviour, but as for p&g, it's tantamount to trolling and a personal attack, the comment should either be struck, redacted and/or collapsed. You have no valid reason to retain that accusation, your edit to the lead and my revert of it have absolutely nothing to do with this RfC, so let it go already. - wolf 04:16, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Thewolfchild: My comment stated: "In § Recent edits & reversions, Thewolfchild did not 'believe [my] changes were necessary or an improvement'", which is factually correct. My comment was regarding reversion of my change to add header scope, and so was implying, not explicitly stating, that your comment was with regard to that. That was not correct. Your comment that I was quoting was in reply to a comment of mine, in which I clearly stated that I was discussing both wording changes and scope addition. As such, I interpreted that the "changes" you referenced included both wording changes and scope addition. In this thread, you have clarified that they were only applicable to the wording changes that you reverted. I replied that I understood and apologised for the misinterpretation. Please refrain from further editing my comment against guidelines. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 05:56, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• No - Maintain status quo. It's ain't broke, so don't fix it. GoodDay (talk) 20:51, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Pardon? It doesn't change anything aesthetically, and makes the article more useful to those with screen readers. What is with your crusade against this basic accessibility improvement? --Golbez (talk) 21:01, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  (edit conflict)GoodDay, it ain't broke for you, but what about those with disabilities, for whom MOS:ACCESS was written? – Muboshgu (talk) 21:01, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not changing my stance. GoodDay (talk) 21:08, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Unacceptable argument. WP:ACCESSIBILITY is a guideline with explicit endorsement by WMF and is based on legal grounds and principles of non-discrimination against disabled readers. "If it ain't broke don't fix it" is not a valid reason to disregard the fact that it is broken for people other than you. AlexEng^(TALK) 21:40, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  The RFC closer can make that decision. GoodDay (talk) 22:00, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes If this doesn't meet accessibility needs, then it's broke. Reywas92^Talk 21:12, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes – As MOS on accessibility recommends using header scope and as there is no compelling reason not to do so. Drdpw (talk) 21:27, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes per MOS and WP:READER. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:33, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes clearly. Absent any special exception for this case, accessibility should be respected. AlexEng^(TALK) 21:42, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes it is broken, so fix it. Why is this even a question? Did someone resist fixes? Dicklyon (talk) 01:31, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Dicklyon: Yes. See the "No" vote by GoodDay (and § Recent edits & reversions, the discussion that prompted this). Tol (talk | contribs) @ 02:18, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes — I participated in the previous discussion. One of the most basic accessibility requirement of the table, should be uncontroversial to add. Adding header scope has benefit, and I fail to see a single disadvantage of it. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:46, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes - not sure why this is being fought? SSSB (talk) 09:06, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Yep, don't see why not. - wolf 04:16, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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?

• The most important part of the list is, of course, the president themselves. So that should be the primary data point of the column, not their time in office. So that leads me to: Number; Portrait and name (no birth/death dates but battles are chosen); Period in office; Party; Election; and Vice. Period in office is separate from number, and they should not be combined. --Golbez (talk) 20:50, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Status quo - Don't change anything. It's not broke, so don't fix it. GoodDay (talk) 20:52, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Number (narrow column), then portrait and name. The identifier for each row is the person so that should be on the left, not the dates. The status quo is an illogical order and inconsistent with every other officeholder list. Reywas92^Talk 21:11, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Number, portrait and name, per Golbez and Reywas92. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:37, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I find the above reasoning of Golbez and Reywas92 sound, and concur: number (Arabic numeral) // portrait and name (sorting by last name) // period in office // party // election // vice president (sorting by last name, and with "Vacant after" cells all sorting after all names). Drdpw (talk) 21:49, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Number -> Portrait -> Name -> Term -> Party -> Election -> Vice President(s). I would also be okay with Portrait and Name being swapped. In no case should "Presidency" (or equivalent nomenclature for that column) appear to the left of the name and portrait. The column provides ancillary information that is supplemental to the order in which the presidents appear (reinforced by the number column) and should not be presented before the identity information of the president. AlexEng^(TALK) 22:10, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Not to try to push my preferred order, just to justify it, but: It seems more aesthetically pleasing/balanced to have the portrait as far left as we can, so that it doesn't break the flow of the table. Also why I prefer the party color bar towards the left, rather than right next to the party - it breaks up the flow. The table should thin towards the right, not be bumpy. (I just came up with those high-brow terms) --Golbez (talk) 22:18, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Party color column belongs next to the party name column, as they have a symbiotic connection to each other. Drdpw (talk) 22:43, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I can see that, and wouldn't fight against it; I just find having the "graphical" elements grouped together to be more pleasing. Since it's not a real data column (since it relies purely on another and is only a quick visual aid, and is in itself inaccessible) it didn't seem important where it went, as long as it went somewhere reasonable. --Golbez (talk) 23:21, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  It sounds like you both agree with me on the order, or am I wrong about that? I didn't take a position on where the party color should go, but now that I've read your responses, I agree that it should be closely linked to the party column. With respect to the accessibility of party color – it is acceptable because it is a supplementary visual aid and does not exclusively require color vision to identify the president's party; in other words, it's fine because we also have the name of the party in text in the column. AlexEng^(TALK) 06:24, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Status quo - first, this is proposal to change the order of the existing columns. We are not asked to split or merge columns, or add or remove information from the columns or cells. The "reasoning" provided by Golbez and Reywas92 in their !votes, and accepted by Drdpw, goes beyond the question posted and is not particularly clear (or consistent). The "most important data point is the president themselves" does not justify splitting the "number" and "period in office" columns, especially since the number would remain at the far left where it already is and the "name" (the actual identifier) remains after that. Combining "portrait" and "name" into a single column, when the "portrait" is already by far the largest cell in each row, will just make those cells larger and unwieldy, (even if you remove the dates of birth & death, which this appears to be a backdoor attempt at). There is only six somewhat narrow columns, this is not a particularly wide table, even on cell screens there is no need to scroll left or right, all information is readily and easily acquired, so there really is no need to start merging and splitting columns, removing any info, and moving the columns order around. - wolf 22:57, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm sure there's a reason "reasoning" is in quotes. But anyway: "does not justify splitting the [columns]" No, that in itself doesn't; the fact that it's ugly, is combining two different datapoints, and isn't done by any other list that I'm aware of, that justifies not having number and term in the same column. As for how the name can be the primary data point yet not be at the far left, that's because the far left is the list identifier. If we didn't care about the order then, yes, portrait/name would be first. But we do. For any other layout questions, I simply refer to the featured list List of governors of Alabama. --Golbez (talk) 23:18, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  If you want to read into a pair of quotes... go nuts, have fun. And you can't possibly see that much of a difference between the this list and the Alabama gubernatorial list, so much so that this list is "ugly" and that one is... pretty? - wolf 01:30, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  As for what's "ugly" I plainly stated that it was the combined number/term box that we presently have, and which Alabama doesn't, because, as stated above, it's ugly, combines two different datapoints, and isn't done by any other list that I'm aware of. --Golbez (talk) 04:49, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I do not mean to combine portrait and name in a single cell, I meant portrait column then name column. I do not want to remove the dates. I just want to move the term column to the right, so do not put words in my/our mouth. Separating the number and term of office is what most other such lists like List of prime ministers of Canada and List of governors of Indiana do so I'm not sure why we need to "justify" bringing this in line what others have. The number is narrow enough that it's okay to keep on the left. Reywas92^Talk 23:25, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh relax, I didn't "put words in your mouth". And read WP:OSE. - wolf 01:30, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  It's okay mate, it's what you do. And while, yes, "other stuff [doesn't] exist" is an argument to avoid, it's still valid if we're saying it doesn't exist anywhere else because it's a bad idea. "We shouldn't include dickbutt in this article, no other articles have a picture of dickbutt on them" "ahem, read OSE" --Golbez (talk) 04:53, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  OSE is for deletion discussions. Seeking uniformity among similar articles is perfectly reasonable. "which this appears to be a backdoor attempt at" is a rude, baseless insinuation. Reywas92^Talk 15:09, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Start with the number (why the list is ordered the way it is), then go name, potrait (or potrait, name, don't mind), date range, elections(s) won, party (or party, election(s) won, don't mind), vice-president (whose relevance on the list is borderline). SSSB (talk) 09:17, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Pinging all users who participated in previous discussions (
  • GoodDay
  • Thewolfchild
  • Drdpw
  • Golbez
  • Reywas92
  • Kavyansh.Singh
  • SSSB
  • Viktory02
  ). Tol (talk | contribs) @ 19:55, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• So which option is the status quo? GoodDay (talk) 20:28, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @GoodDay: In question 1, option A is the status quo, as it states ("A: Unsorted (status quo)"). In question 2, No is the status quo, as it states ("The lists currently do not contain scope metadata in headers"). In question 3, (Vice) Presidency (number and date range), Portrait, Name (and birth/death dates), Party, Election, and then Accompanying (Vice) President is the status quo, as it states ("The lists are currently ordered as follows: ..."). Tol (talk | contribs) @ 20:46, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Tol: In the threaded replies, the indents are a mix of colons and asterisks, as per your suppressed instructions, but doesn't that contravene WP:THREAD? - wolf 21:56, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Thewolfchild: I don't think so — although it says that "[g]enerally, colons and asterisks should not be mixed", it follows by stating that "complex discussions may mix them". I chose to explicitly recommend a style while drafting, so that it wouldn't all be a mix of different indentation — though it seems it's turning out that way anyway. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 00:38, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  While this RfC may appear complex, at least more than it needed to be, the minor dispute behind it is actually quite straightforward. And as I said, the indents are mixed in your instructions. But, whatever... - wolf 01:13, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, so that all first-level comments are bullets and all replies are not. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 01:20, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Thewolfchild: I applaud the good faith attempt to support accessibility, but you're mistaken in this case. The formatting suggested by Tol does not contravene WP:THREAD. WP:THREAD says Generally, colons and asterisks should not be mixed; if you see asterisks are being used in a page, use them as well. I think you interpreted that as don't use both a colon and an asterisk in the same line, but what it actually means is don't reply to a colon with just asterisks and don't reply to an asterisk with just colons. Please read the appropriate section in MOS:INDENTMIX. The style suggested by Tol is the third example Y, while the mixed style referred to in WP:THREAD is the fourth example N. Hope that helps! AlexEng^(TALK) 06:59, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• PLEASE STOP BULLET POINTING responses. It's damned annoying & makes the above discussions confusing. GoodDay (talk) 02:01, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @GoodDay: I appreciate that you're also fixing these. However, please don't just use colons, because replies to a bullet-pointed comment should have one bullet point and then the appropriate amount of colons for indentation (* for a comment; *:, *::, etc. for replies). Here's the MoS guideline on this with some advice. Thanks! Tol (talk | contribs) @ 02:17, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Fine, as long as it doesn't leave a row of dots. GoodDay (talk) 02:20, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  It doesn't. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 02:28, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

  Cool. GoodDay (talk) 05:01, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I lol'ed! Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:11, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I recommend a 4th option. Delete the vice presidents from this article & delete the presidents from the List of vice presidents of the United States article. They're separate offices, which don't need to be interwined with each others' list. GoodDay (talk) 07:17, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Incredible! Hmm. What would we need in such a table, I wonder? Hmm. Obviously, the president each VP served under, and the dates, and... Nah. Let's stick with the status quo. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:13, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]