![]() | 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. | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Other talk page banners |
Lead image
See #Request for comments: table structure and the lead image below (to avoid split discussions/duplication/missed posts/general confusion, etc.) - wolf 00:33, 20 June 2022 (UTC) |
- 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.
- Top left: George Washington was the first president.
- Top right: Abraham Lincoln was the president during the Civil War.
- Bottom left: Franklin D. Roosevelt was the longest serving president, elected four times.
- Bottom right: Joe Biden is the current president.
The infobox from the lead was (correctly) removed by Drdpw. 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)
- Top left: George Washington was the first president.
- Top middle: Abraham Lincoln was the president during the Civil War.
- Top right: Grover Cleveland was the only person elected to two non-consecutive terms as the 22nd and 24th president.
- Bottom left: Franklin D. Roosevelt was the longest serving president, elected four times.
- Bottom middle: Barack Obama was the first African-American elected president.
- Bottom right: Joe Biden is the current president.
- 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 SoWhy 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 SoWhy 19:29, 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 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)
- 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? - wolf 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)
- 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)
- 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? - wolf 00:34, 24 May 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) - wolf 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" (emphasis added). 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." (emphasis added) 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 (emphasis added), and one interpretation of a guideline doesn't necessarily negate all that. But that said, I suspect we'll have to agree to disagree. - wolf 21:05, 18 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" (emphasis added). 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." (emphasis added) 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)
- 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) - wolf 05:42, 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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:
- Prose:
Looks good.
- Lead:
Great!
- Comprehensiveness:
Good for all three.
- Structure:
Yep.
- Style:
Yea.
- Stability:
Yes.
Do you agree that, after 13 years, is good enough to be re-nominated for FL status? interstatefive 16:04, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- 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 (#Post-post-close discussion) and the lead image (#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. interstatefive 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)
- 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. interstatefive 21:16, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Request for comments: table structure and the lead image
This request for comments is broadly for two question relating to this list:
- the table structure
- the lead image.
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.
– 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.
Alternative table proposed
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
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 | 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, {{Politics of the United States}}, 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?
Examples of the options
|
---|
|
– Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:23, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Kavyansh.Singh: 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?) - wolf 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) - wolf 07:36, 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)
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. interstatefive 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. - wolf 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 for similar reasons (to a lesser extent), if it leads to a consensus. 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: @Thewolfchild, GoodDay, SSSB, Tol, Drdpw, Golbez, Aza24, SoWhy, and Reywas92:. 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) - wolf 00:33, 20 June 2022 (UTC)