![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
There is some discussion on Template talk:US Presidents about how the presidency of Franklin Roosevelt must be mentioned. That article is recently split and the gives multiple options and page owners. I would appreciate any opinions on Template_talk:US Presidents#FDR disambiguation. The Banner talk 19:45, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
I have nominated Gettysburg Address for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:05, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion (which can be found here) at Talk:Joe Biden which could potentially impact several articles related to presidents. Input from this community would be appreciated. AllegedlyHuman ( talk) 21:47, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Second impeachment trial of Donald Trump, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. MrLinkinPark333 ( talk) 20:35, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
Recently editor User:GoodDay has removed almost all the series boxes from U.S. president biographies; for example see Ulysses S. Grant. Was this as a result of a discussion in this project? Bruce leverett ( talk) 19:53, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
@ Politicsfan4: has taken it upon himself, to unilaterally restore those useless boxes. GoodDay ( talk) 01:28, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
@ GoodDay: How are they useless? They direct the reader to related articles about the subject. I don’t understand why they were removed in the first place. — Politicsfan4 ( talk) 13:32, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
A discussion parallel to this one is taking place at User Talk:GoodDay#President series boxes. Bruce leverett ( talk) 20:46, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
The sidebars are intrusive behemoths that wreck the layout of biographical articles and are entirely identical in content to the other navboxes that appear in the articles. The sidebars:
And for what is the layout so utterly destroyed? All those links appear in the lead section or in the Table of Contents anyway. I cannot find any discussion that resulted in the consensus that these sidebars should be added; they just pop up one day, springing up like mushrooms. Surtsicna ( talk) 19:04, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Reagan's article is good example of how 'out-of-control' these intrusive series boxes/side bars, have become. GoodDay ( talk) 20:12, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
I could not care less about the "series" when they stay put in the blank space between the infobox and the first section. I still see no need or use for them but I find it easy enough to ignore them. I oppose them when they affect the layout. I agree with Bruce leverett regarding the length of infoboxes; some common sense restraint vis-à-vis those would be very helpful too. Surtsicna ( talk) 10:06, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
@ Spy-cicle: I have restored the deleted series boxes (and some others that had been deleted in the same sweep).
One solution would be to allow series boxes on U.S presidential pages which do not have an individual navbox template. Many presidents are still without a navbox, including 20th century office holders McKinley and Harding and most of the 19th century presidents. If they don't have one (and their creation should be encouraged) then a series box seems appropriate. Randy Kryn ( talk) 12:42, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't mean to be rude, User:Surtsicna has raised some legitimate questions. When there is an RfC for this, the RfC will be the place to have this discussion, and everything we have said here will need to be transplanted there, so I thought it was a high priority to get the reverts done so that User:Spy-cicle could proceed. Also, Wikipedia is only a hobby for me -- I can't always find the time to make immediate responses.
I generally agree with what User:Randy Kryn and User:Shearonink have said, as well as with some earlier comments by User:AllegedlyHuman.
I see series boxes as valuable, not least because they are more prominent than end-of-article navboxes. Of course, it's the prominence that causes format issues. But if a user is learning about U.S. Grant, he/she wants to click back and forth between related articles easily, and top-of-article is better than bottom-of-article for that. Redundancy is not a fatal flaw -- an article with both a series box and a navbox is not the worse for it. However, due to the high price of top-of-article real estate, series boxes should be more "focused"; for instance, there is not room for links to all the articles about the president's family members.
I am annoyed by the formatting issues, but I don't see them as critical to deciding whether or not to include the sidebars. An encyclopedia article is not a work of visual art. Above all it has to be useful for readers. I don't like the idea of sacrificing valuable material because it must be placed next to material that is not clearly related.
For the presidents, there are in most cases quite a few "related" articles. So both series boxes and navboxes have the potential to be useful, and it makes sense to add them to articles that don't already have them.
Besides Ulysses S. Grant, which became a Featured Article when it already had a series box (2015), I noticed that Franklin D. Roosevelt became a Good Article when it already had a series box (2018). But, that is not a general pattern. Most of the Presidents that have been Featured Articles became so many years ago. Also, I won't dispute the claim that most of the series boxes are less than a year old, but as you can see, some of them are quite a bit older. I am sure that more than one editor has been involved in adding them. Bruce leverett ( talk) 18:40, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
Okay in preparation for this RfC, these are the possible options I have thought about listing. But before I start it, I am requesting feedback if we need greater or fewer options, or rewording. Thanks Spy-cicle💥 Talk? 17:53, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
I hope someone will be able to show us how the sidebars would look collapsed. Surtsicna ( talk) 01:39, 10 July 2021 (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.
Question 1: How should we handle US president series boxes on articles ( Example series box, Category)? Spy-cicle💥 Talk? 22:02, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
Question 2: How should we handle US vice-president series boxes on articles ( Example series box, no specific US vice-president series Category found likely due to not many of them exist but perhaps some could be made depending on the outcome of RfC)? Spy-cicle💥 Talk? 22:02, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
{{rfc}}
tag before Legobot had visited the first (see
WP:RFC#Multiple simultaneous RfCs on one page). The thing to do is to restore the two lines with the DoNotArchiveUntil information and {{
rfc}}
tag to just one of the questions, exactly as it had been left by Legobot. Then on the other question, add one line {{
rfc|bio|pol|tech}}
I have nominated William Henry Harrison for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Sahaib3005 ( talk) 17:37, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
For the Wikipedia pages of U.S. presidents, the majority of the short descriptions follow this format: 50th president of the United States (2037-2041)
. A few omit the dates.
When I endeavored to add dates for two presidents where the dates were missing, editor @
SNUGGUMS:
reverted with the message This field is supposed to be concise, so adding years defeats the purpose
.
I'd like to know the consensus of more editors.
For me, I think knowing that Theodore Roosevelt was president 1901-1909 is much more informative description than knowing he was number 26. I know a short description is to be concise, but it is also supposed to be useful. I don't think adding the dates harms concision very much, while adding a lot to descriptive power.
Anyway, having had two of these reverted, and in order to promote a consistent decision, I think a talk page discussion is in order. Wikiproject Presidents seemed like the logical population. -- M.boli ( talk) 16:23, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
I created this article last year: White House New Year's Reception. Any help improving it would be appreciated! Thank you, Thriley ( talk) 08:23, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
A request for comment that may interest members of this project has been opened at Talk:Donald Trump § RfC: Should the lead section have any citations?. –– FormalDude talk 19:51, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like
John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.
)and turns it into something like
It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{ cite web}}, {{ cite journal}} and {{ doi}}.
The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.
Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.
This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 16:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
There is some discussion on Template talk:US Presidents about how the presidency of Franklin Roosevelt must be mentioned. That article is recently split and the gives multiple options and page owners. I would appreciate any opinions on Template_talk:US Presidents#FDR disambiguation. The Banner talk 19:45, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
I have nominated Gettysburg Address for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:05, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion (which can be found here) at Talk:Joe Biden which could potentially impact several articles related to presidents. Input from this community would be appreciated. AllegedlyHuman ( talk) 21:47, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Second impeachment trial of Donald Trump, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. MrLinkinPark333 ( talk) 20:35, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
Recently editor User:GoodDay has removed almost all the series boxes from U.S. president biographies; for example see Ulysses S. Grant. Was this as a result of a discussion in this project? Bruce leverett ( talk) 19:53, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
@ Politicsfan4: has taken it upon himself, to unilaterally restore those useless boxes. GoodDay ( talk) 01:28, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
@ GoodDay: How are they useless? They direct the reader to related articles about the subject. I don’t understand why they were removed in the first place. — Politicsfan4 ( talk) 13:32, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
A discussion parallel to this one is taking place at User Talk:GoodDay#President series boxes. Bruce leverett ( talk) 20:46, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
The sidebars are intrusive behemoths that wreck the layout of biographical articles and are entirely identical in content to the other navboxes that appear in the articles. The sidebars:
And for what is the layout so utterly destroyed? All those links appear in the lead section or in the Table of Contents anyway. I cannot find any discussion that resulted in the consensus that these sidebars should be added; they just pop up one day, springing up like mushrooms. Surtsicna ( talk) 19:04, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Reagan's article is good example of how 'out-of-control' these intrusive series boxes/side bars, have become. GoodDay ( talk) 20:12, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
I could not care less about the "series" when they stay put in the blank space between the infobox and the first section. I still see no need or use for them but I find it easy enough to ignore them. I oppose them when they affect the layout. I agree with Bruce leverett regarding the length of infoboxes; some common sense restraint vis-à-vis those would be very helpful too. Surtsicna ( talk) 10:06, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
@ Spy-cicle: I have restored the deleted series boxes (and some others that had been deleted in the same sweep).
One solution would be to allow series boxes on U.S presidential pages which do not have an individual navbox template. Many presidents are still without a navbox, including 20th century office holders McKinley and Harding and most of the 19th century presidents. If they don't have one (and their creation should be encouraged) then a series box seems appropriate. Randy Kryn ( talk) 12:42, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't mean to be rude, User:Surtsicna has raised some legitimate questions. When there is an RfC for this, the RfC will be the place to have this discussion, and everything we have said here will need to be transplanted there, so I thought it was a high priority to get the reverts done so that User:Spy-cicle could proceed. Also, Wikipedia is only a hobby for me -- I can't always find the time to make immediate responses.
I generally agree with what User:Randy Kryn and User:Shearonink have said, as well as with some earlier comments by User:AllegedlyHuman.
I see series boxes as valuable, not least because they are more prominent than end-of-article navboxes. Of course, it's the prominence that causes format issues. But if a user is learning about U.S. Grant, he/she wants to click back and forth between related articles easily, and top-of-article is better than bottom-of-article for that. Redundancy is not a fatal flaw -- an article with both a series box and a navbox is not the worse for it. However, due to the high price of top-of-article real estate, series boxes should be more "focused"; for instance, there is not room for links to all the articles about the president's family members.
I am annoyed by the formatting issues, but I don't see them as critical to deciding whether or not to include the sidebars. An encyclopedia article is not a work of visual art. Above all it has to be useful for readers. I don't like the idea of sacrificing valuable material because it must be placed next to material that is not clearly related.
For the presidents, there are in most cases quite a few "related" articles. So both series boxes and navboxes have the potential to be useful, and it makes sense to add them to articles that don't already have them.
Besides Ulysses S. Grant, which became a Featured Article when it already had a series box (2015), I noticed that Franklin D. Roosevelt became a Good Article when it already had a series box (2018). But, that is not a general pattern. Most of the Presidents that have been Featured Articles became so many years ago. Also, I won't dispute the claim that most of the series boxes are less than a year old, but as you can see, some of them are quite a bit older. I am sure that more than one editor has been involved in adding them. Bruce leverett ( talk) 18:40, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
Okay in preparation for this RfC, these are the possible options I have thought about listing. But before I start it, I am requesting feedback if we need greater or fewer options, or rewording. Thanks Spy-cicle💥 Talk? 17:53, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
I hope someone will be able to show us how the sidebars would look collapsed. Surtsicna ( talk) 01:39, 10 July 2021 (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.
Question 1: How should we handle US president series boxes on articles ( Example series box, Category)? Spy-cicle💥 Talk? 22:02, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
Question 2: How should we handle US vice-president series boxes on articles ( Example series box, no specific US vice-president series Category found likely due to not many of them exist but perhaps some could be made depending on the outcome of RfC)? Spy-cicle💥 Talk? 22:02, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
{{rfc}}
tag before Legobot had visited the first (see
WP:RFC#Multiple simultaneous RfCs on one page). The thing to do is to restore the two lines with the DoNotArchiveUntil information and {{
rfc}}
tag to just one of the questions, exactly as it had been left by Legobot. Then on the other question, add one line {{
rfc|bio|pol|tech}}
I have nominated William Henry Harrison for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Sahaib3005 ( talk) 17:37, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
For the Wikipedia pages of U.S. presidents, the majority of the short descriptions follow this format: 50th president of the United States (2037-2041)
. A few omit the dates.
When I endeavored to add dates for two presidents where the dates were missing, editor @
SNUGGUMS:
reverted with the message This field is supposed to be concise, so adding years defeats the purpose
.
I'd like to know the consensus of more editors.
For me, I think knowing that Theodore Roosevelt was president 1901-1909 is much more informative description than knowing he was number 26. I know a short description is to be concise, but it is also supposed to be useful. I don't think adding the dates harms concision very much, while adding a lot to descriptive power.
Anyway, having had two of these reverted, and in order to promote a consistent decision, I think a talk page discussion is in order. Wikiproject Presidents seemed like the logical population. -- M.boli ( talk) 16:23, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
I created this article last year: White House New Year's Reception. Any help improving it would be appreciated! Thank you, Thriley ( talk) 08:23, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
A request for comment that may interest members of this project has been opened at Talk:Donald Trump § RfC: Should the lead section have any citations?. –– FormalDude talk 19:51, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like
John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.
)and turns it into something like
It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{ cite web}}, {{ cite journal}} and {{ doi}}.
The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.
Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.
This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 16:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)