Talk:List of presidents of the United States/Archive 15

Q2 is mainly referencing the myth that Atchison was acting president. But what about HW and Cheney? I think there should be a note next to their names in the VP column saying they acted as president. Example:

Presidency[a]		President		Party[b]		Election	Vice President
40	January 20, 1981 – January 20, 1989		Ronald Reagan		Republican	1980	George H. W. Bush[c]
						1984
43	January 20, 2001 – January 20, 2009		George W. Bush		Republican	2000	Dick Cheney[d]
						2004

--eduardog3000 (talk) 19:07, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

If there is no discussion I will boldly make this change and see how it fares. --eduardog3000 (talk) 17:45, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I would be inclined to revert such an edit, and would cite a lack of consensus for including detail. The reason why there should not be a note next to Bush's and Cheney's names in the VP column saying they acted as president is because their time as acting president was brief, mere hours, and each occasion passed-bye uneventfully, thus rendering the fact not noteworthy. Drdpw (talk) 19:17, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

You can't expect people to respect such a revert if nobody contributed to the discuss which sought to attempt to find a consensus. I'm sorry, but I just don't find that reasonable. For my part, I didn't join the discussion because I'm not fussed either way.
SSSB (talk) 19:21, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

You are correct, that rash action would have been unreasonable on my part. Drdpw (talk) 19:35, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I disagree that time and eventfulness are disqualifiers for a footnote. I'd say the fact that they acted at all is pertinent information in a list of people who have been in the position. If it were for a significant span it would probably warrant a row on the table, so I think a footnote is fitting for those short uneventful occasions. --eduardog3000 (talk) 20:59, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with the additons. They're just notes, so they don't clutter the table, and all instances of the VPs acting as President are noted and sourced in their BLPs. jmho - wolf 23:56, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't add such notes here. If anywhere, such notes would be added at the List of vice presidents of the United States. Bush in 1985 & Cheney in 2002, 2007 were not president of the United States, but rather vice president performing the powers & duties of the presidency. GoodDay (talk) 16:05, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

As has been seen in the edit history the past few days, there is some disagreement over Obama's portrait.

Currently, his first term photo is on the page. This is inconsistent with most of the other photos on the page which are using the photos found on the official White House website (Here: https://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-white-house/presidents/), which to my knowledge use second-term portraits when available.

I know concerns have been brought up that Obama's second term portrait is too far back and unlike the other images, which are all closely cropped headshots, but this can easily be fixed with cropping.

Can someone point me to a consensus to use Obama's first term portrait, if there is one? Also, what is the required steps to challenge a consensus? Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 04:26, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

@Basil the Bat Lord: You posted this 2 weeks ago and there were no replies, meaning no interest and no consensus. You have your answer. Therefore there is no need for your RfC below. It's just a form of badgering/forum-shopping. Along with no consensus for your proposal here, I posted a link to to an already established consensus, in your RfC below. I suggest you strike the RfC and move on to something else. I know you want to help, but this keeps coming up and I think we need a break from these proposals, for stability if anything. JMHO - wolf 07:24, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: How do you change an existing consensus if not via RfC? Genuine question. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 08:04, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

You've been on WP for awhile now, I don't think you need me to explain that. If you think there is an appetite for a new consensus, despite everything in front you here on this page, then continue with your RfC. Who knows... maybe you'll swing it. - wolf 08:31, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild:I was genuinely asking... I'm not as familiar with WP as you seem to think I am. This the first time I've ever opened an RfC on anything. I was under the impression that RfC's are the appropriate way to seek to change existing consensus, is that not the case? Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 00:11, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

And I genuinely answered. But instead of seeking the opinion of a single editor, it's probably better to go by what WP says; for info on RfCs, go here and for info on consensus, go here. Have a nice day - wolf 00:30, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Former presidents who ran for the presidency. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 11#Former presidents who ran for the presidency until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 04:36, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't know how to edit yet but can someone please remove Incumbent from Joe Biden's listing as our 46th President?Thank you.Dramaced (talk) 16:56, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

... why? Incumbent means the current office holder. --Golbez (talk) 17:18, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

@Dramaced: Wicktionary: incumbent. - wolf 19:01, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Because Joe Biden is the current president now, why don't we have this as his new portrait [1]--Greencarrots98 (talk) 22:56, 12 February 2021 (UTC)Greencarrots98

Because, that media file has been nominated for deletion. Drdpw (talk) 00:37, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect List of former United States presidents who ran for office after leaving the presidency. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 20#List of former United States presidents who ran for office after leaving the presidency until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:45, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

The peer review has now been archived at Wikipedia:Peer review/List of presidents of the United States/archive1. The suggestions all pertain to the lead. I'm not willing to take it on by myself, but I'd very much suggest that the articles' top contributors put it forward at WP:FLC after applying the tweaks (I'd be willing to co-nom). It won't take much work to get this in passing shape, and it's low-hanging fruit for anyone who wants a WP:Million award. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:10, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect List of presents of the United States. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 11#List of presents of the United States until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Mdewman6 (talk) 02:15, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Presidentiad. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 11#Presidentiad until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Mdewman6 (talk) 02:37, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Gallery of Presidents of the United States. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 11#Gallery of Presidents of the United States until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Mdewman6 (talk) 03:20, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Currently the article uses the Stuart portrait of John Adams:

However, the official portrait is the Trumbell portrait:

Can we get a consensus on updating the Adams portrait?

Thurgoodmarshallisbae (talk) 23:00, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

What is problematic about the Stuart portrait? Why change to the Trumbull portrait? Drdpw (talk) 03:53, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

• This article is obviously a very important one, and many websites and search engines will use the images Wikipedia has on this article. In the interest of education, I think it might be best to be consistent with the official portraits. This may just be a personal preference; not a huge deal, but something I thought I would being up. Thurgoodmarshallisbae (talk) 23:26, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

  I'm not sure I follow your train of thought with your second sentence. How is subscribing to an "official" potrait in the interest of education?
  SSSB (talk) 11:30, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

• The current portrait is fine, and it's there because we already had a consensus done (actually several, I believe). Not sure why every few weeks another user pops in and suddenly wants another consensus...
  • "I want the one where he's doing his high school senior pose!"
  • "No, I want the one where he's going with Coquettish Ingénue!"
• The list is fine. I think there's better things to do. (jmho) - wolf 17:22, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

On the list there is a glitch where the second you scroll down to the 44th president all of the pictures disappear. Not sure why or how this is happening but it is happening. UnderTails63 (talk) 23:12, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

– I did not detect a glitch in the table. Drdpw (talk) 00:32, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Me neither, ftr - wolf 01:20, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I get it to, but only on my mobile browser.
SSSB (talk) 09:19, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I see it now, (if I'm on my smartphone, I always use desktop mode), but just tried looking at the table in mobile and yep, when you scroll the table, the images disappear when reach the bottom. I have to refresh the page to get them back. File a report to VPT? - wolf 17:30, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I am also experiencing the same issue with presidential pictures disappearing alter scrolling to the end of the list. Worth noting this only happens on my iPhone (Browser: safari / IPhone 11pro updated to latest software). However I did not experience this on my I-pad w/ Safari Herenow44 (talk) 04:37, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

The portrait of Quincy Adams currently being used was created roughly 15 years (likely more) after his presidency:

I suggest we use a portrait of him that was likely created during his presidency instead:

Van Buren also has a portrait created long after his presidency, around 20 years:

We should use this painting of him instead, since it was also likely created during his presidency:

PJRoRo (talk) 17:08, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

• 
  Proposed image
• 
  Current image

Quick question, why is Reagan's lead image his first term official portrait vs his second term official portrait? For Bush and Obama, their lead images are their second term's official portraits. Just wondering. I've placed Reagan's second term portrait for visual reference. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:52, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I've added the current image to allow comparison without going to the list. Images on this list are not chosen based on them being second term potraits. The are chosen for image quality and consistency with other pictures (in terms of how they look, not when they were taken). I currently oppose this swap based on the second critera based on that criteria. Visually, the current image most closely matches the others in this article.
SSSB (talk) 08:05, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Also the Obama potrait is from his first term.
SSSB (talk) 08:08, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

With whether Reagan's first term or second term portrait should be used, i really think it just depends on whether more people think that it should always be first or second term portraits are better to represent them. I would recommend that this matter is put to a vote to try and get a consensus Lawrence 979 (talk) 23:37, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

The initial question has been answered; there is nothing to vote on. Drdpw (talk) 23:58, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

How do we decide when to make the titular names of the Presidents include their middle name, their middle initial or no middle name at all? Can the names given be trusted to reflect the most common names of these Presidents? I'm working on something where I need the most idiomatic names of the presidents and want to use this a reference, but I'm leery about whether some of the names (such as Harry S. Truman instead of Harry Truman, William Howard Taft instead of William Taft) are accurate for this purpose.24.59.152.85 (talk) 14:51, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I beleive (but I could be wrong) that the page uses the common name. (also worth bearing in mind that) Even if the idea was to use the commonname, it is possible that someone changed to a name they prefered, and no-one bothered to change it back. So I wouldn't use Wikipedia as a reference, Wikipedia isn't a reliable source. Wikipedia even has a policy against using Wikipedia as a source: Wikipedia:Verifiability#Wikipedia and sources that mirror or use it
SSSB (talk) 16:58, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

There were two parties before the 1st Congress. The Federalists and Anti-Federalists. After the articles of confederation proved to be lacking a central authority, the above mentioned parties began forming a new United States so that each state would have equal opportunity to pursue their interests while retaining sovereignty.

Source: literally any textbook. 2600:8801:2A8F:2700:8990:5602:2DEC:30E9 (talk) 07:15, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Well provide a source then… Equine-man (talk) 07:17, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ––FormalDude talk 08:13, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

I suggest adding this "table TOC", a compact list indexing the table. Lots of readers probably just want the actual list of presidents without scrolling through a long table, 12 screens on my desktop. Or they only want to see a few entries like the recent ones, 10+ screens down. The table is 70 times longer than the list on my screen. I added the list but was reverted by Drdpw. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:41, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose proposed additon. We already have the presidents listed, one merely needs to scroll down. GoodDay (talk) 22:59, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

I suggest adding the president's birth and death under their name like this revision. This is done in most lists of countries' heads of states or governments such as List of prime ministers of Canada, List of presidents of Russia and List of chancellors of Germany, among others. I feel that this list is too bland compared to other lists of countries' leaders.Cyrobyte (talk) 16:30, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - here, at List of vice presidents of the United States & any other List of American officials articles. IMHO, the birth/death dates should be deleted from those other country leaders lists. GoodDay (talk) 16:57, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
• Comment - I'm leaning in favour, but I'm apprehensive. Why is there, if any, significant opposition to adding life and death years? Plenty of officeholder templates use that, implying that such information is helpful for inclusion in such tables. SuperWIKI (talk) 17:00, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Now in favour. Support. SuperWIKI (talk) 12:00, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Comment – List of first ladies of the United States, a featured list has birth and death dates under names. I won't oppose this, but can we explain further how the lifespan of a president is useful for an user who want to see just a list of presidents. And we do have List of presidents of the United States by age. Wouldn't it violate content forking guidelines? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:02, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Support adding birth and death year in small text. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:05, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
• Comment - I would also lean in favor, just because the info is useful without being obtrusive. Generally, more is better, unless it's too much, and I don't think this is too much. (jmho) - wolf 20:11, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Support - just to make it official. - wolf 15:58, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the above. It's not intrusive and provides info. Let's keep it at that, though. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 03:19, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support - I support adding year of birth and year of death (Year only, to avoid cluttering), as the info is useful and would be unobtrusive. Drdpw (talk) 11:33, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - it's been over a week and it would appear that consensus is in support of this edit. Does anyone have any additional comments to make, or object to the edit being re-added? - wolf 23:13, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

• Update - I've re-added the birth/death dates to this article & added the birth/death dates to the List of vice presidents of the United States article. GoodDay (talk) 00:21, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

@Drdpw: this note (or a variation of) seems like it might a worthwhile addition. Considering the column header is simply: "Election", it's entirely possible, (if not likely), that at least for some people, that will "imply" that Ford was elected.
(ping: Krisgabwoosh) Jmho & Cheers - wolf 00:32, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Ford's situation, is the same as Tyler's, Fillmore's, A. Johnson's & Arthur's terms, as well as T. Roosevelt's, Coolidge's, Truman's & L. Johnson's first terms. All succeeded to a term of office that was established by previous election. GoodDay (talk) 00:51, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

The difference to the examples above is that Tyler, Fillmore, etc. were all elected vice president and so it makes sense to an extent to show the election cycle through which they entered office. For Ford, the situation is unique in that he did not participate in any election cycle as a vice presidential candidate. At least to me, the table seemed to imply that Ford was elected vice president in 1972 in the same way someone like Truman was elected v.p. in '44. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 01:51, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Doesn't matter, he became veep, then prez during the January 20, 1973 to January 20, 1977 presidential/vice presidential term. We handle Ford's (and Rockefeller's) situation the same way, at the veep list article. GoodDay (talk) 01:55, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Good enough for me. Though perhaps a note should be added specifying that by "Election" the column refers to the term of office that election established rather than the election the president was elected in. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 02:02, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

From my understanding of the eight Presidents that died in office, they were all succeeded by a VP that was on the ticket and elected with them. After Agnew resigned, Ford was nominated and confirmed by the Senate, and so he was not elected, as either VP or President. When I saw the note added, it reminded me of the very unique circumstances that lead to Ford assuming the Oval Office. A very singular set of circumstances whereby the man was never elected by the people to President, nor even elected as a VP, where voters understand the possibility that the VP might end up assuming the office of POTUS. And so that is why I thought I would raise the issue here for discussion. Of all the notes we do have in this article (and there are quite a few), this actaully seems to be a worthy addition. (jmho) Cheers guys - wolf 03:58, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Wouldn't the easiest solution be to make the "election" header either Election cycle or {{abbr|Election|Election cycle}}? SSSB (talk) 09:36, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

A hovertitle or an abbr would be my choice. It avoids the need for a lengthy note while clearing the issue. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 22:28, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I would like edit access to this because I would like to make a mock presidental timeline in edit mode but I will not publish these changes Flotushistory (talk) 21:17, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. You can click on the "view source" tab and copy the wikitext into your sandbox if you would like to make test edits. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 21:22, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

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)

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)

"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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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)

@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)

@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)

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)

Stay or go?

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

There's a lot of lists within this bar ↓

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

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)

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)

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

@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)

Status quo

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)