Talk:2016 United States presidential election/Remodeling of major party candidate areas

This is a tough one. In a straight vote count, after removing sockvotes and accounting for second preferences C and F seem to be pretty much tied. As this is an issue of aesthetic taste, there isn't really an acceptable way to weight the arguments being made here. It is however, important to note that quite a few of the C !voters made their choice before F was available as an option, and have not commented on the RfC since. It is also the case that quite a few of the !voters who did continue discussing the issues switched to F, and few !voted C after the F option was provided. I would therefore say there is a weak consensus for using F in the article. Brustopher (talk) 15:10, 15 October 2015 (UTC)(non-admin closure)[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.

This is a RFC regarding the organization and display for the candidates of each major party.

Information in this subpage was moved from the original (Talk:United_States_presidential_election,_2016). No information has been deleted (but some has been added to clarify a few things). The options listed below are by no means the only options available. If you have your own option please feel free to add it. In addition, new options have been purposed since the original posting. Please feel free to change your vote.

Option A	Option B (status quo)	Option C (square version)	Option D	Option E	Option F	Option G	Option H (Added Aug.15th)

Other options are welcome. We want to reach complete consensus on this.

Votes

Vote: Option C Spartan7W § 00:03, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Vote: Option C --Stabila711 (talk) 01:43, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Change Vote: Option F --Stabila711 (talk) 05:14, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Vote: Option C.--Ariostos (talk) 01:38, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Vote: Option C--TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 02:39, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Vote: Option C--NextUSprez (talk) 04:14, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Vote: Option C CloudKade11 (talk) 04:22, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: The above user has been blocked for sockpuppetry.[1]
Vote: Option C Nations United (talk) 04:32, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Change Vote: Option F Nations United (talk) 00:36, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
*Vote: Option C David O. Johnson (talk) 05:09, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Change Vote: Option F David O. Johnson (talk) 01:57, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Vote: Option C --Rollins83 (talk) 14:09, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Change Vote:Option F--Rollins83 (talk) 18:21, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Vote: Option C ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 14:11, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Vote: Option B (Original) Tarc (talk) 14:38, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Vote: Option B (Original) --William S. Saturn (talk) 18:30, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I support Option F if consensus decides there must be a table.--William S. Saturn (talk) 01:11, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Vote: Option B (Original) Writegeist (talk) 02:23, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Or F (second choice) Writegeist (talk) 06:04, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Vote: Something with rectangular photos Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:23, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some^[vague] of the above votes were submitted prior to the inclusion of options D, E, F, etc.

Vote: Option C SOXROX (talk) 18:17, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Vote: Option F --JayJasper (talk) 20:44, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Multi-vote, underneath the line below. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 14:38, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Vote: Option C or H Prcc27 (talk) 22:49, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please add new multi-bangvotes, made on or after August 14th, below the line.
If you have already solo-bangvoted above the line, please strike before you multi-bangvote.
If you have not already solo-bangvoted above the line, you need not do so, before you multi-bangvote.

Please make a *brief* multi-bangvote, under the layout-options, and the overall-preferences. You may multi-bangvote in as few or as many areas as you wish. In this multi-bangvote subsection, please bangvote (Strong/Weak) Support, Neutral, and (Strong/Weak) Oppose. You may also bangvote Support with changes if for instance you like option X (hypothetical) but would only support option X with circle-pics, when the rough draft uses square-pics. Please keep rationales BRIEF, if you need more space, add a subsection and link to that subsection from your summarized rationale here in this multi-bangvote section. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 02:16, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

prefer layout-option A == table, candidates in vertical columns, textual info cell-centered, gallery underneath, circle-pics, one-word hover-captions, refs in own row.
- Oppose due to non-sortable candidates-in-a-vertical-column layout, excess whitespace due to pic-in-a-single-cell decision, and difficult to upgrade circle-pics (an NPOV issue -- we need to make it easy to swap bad pics). 75.108.94.227 (talk) 13:25, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

prefer layout-option B == list, candidates in horizontal sentences, textual info left-bulleted, gallery underneath, square-pics, full captions, refs at end of sentences. (Status quo, used in most articles now.)
- Weak Support as reasonably-readable, very-easily-editable, traditional layout. Excess whitespace in pics portion; would help if the gallery-section were changed to use one-word-captions, not repetitive ten-word-captions. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 13:25, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

prefer layout-option C == table, candidates in vertical columns, textual info cell-centered, row of one-per-cell pics, circle-pics, no dedicated captions, refs in own row.
- Oppose due to non-sortable candidates-in-a-vertical-column layout, excess whitespace due to pic-in-a-single-cell decision, and difficult to upgrade circle-pics (an NPOV issue -- we need to make it easy to swap bad pics). 75.108.94.227 (talk) 13:25, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

prefer layout-option D == table, candidates in horizontal rows, textual info left-justified, gallery underneath, square-pics (or circle), one-word captions (or hover), refs in own column (or inlined).
- Support as reasonably-readable, reasonably-editable, reasonably-compact layout. Excess whitespace in pics portion fixed. Change from list-style to horizontal-table-style means factiods can be sorted (e.g. how many guvs?). 75.108.94.227 (talk) 13:25, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

prefer layout-option E == table, candidates in horizontal rows, textual info left-justified, gallery to the right, square-pics (or circle), one-word hover-captions, refs in own column (or inlined).
- Weak Support as reasonably-readable, somewhat-reasonably-editable, extremely-compact layout. Change from list-style to horizontal-table-style means factiods can be sorted (e.g. how many guvs?), although the rough-draft wiki-text here does not actually implement such sorting right now (it is possible and not especially difficult to implement however). 75.108.94.227 (talk) 13:25, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

prefer layout-option F == table, candidates in vertical columns, textual info cell-centered, row of one-per-cell pics, square-pics, no dedicated captions, refs inlined.
- Oppose due to non-sortable candidates-in-a-vertical-column layout, excess whitespace due to pic-in-a-single-cell decision. Square-pics are an improvement over circle-pics in option#C. Need <br /> before refs, since cell-centered text is being used. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 13:25, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

prefer layout-option G == table, candidates in horizontal rows, textual info left-justified, staggered double-barreled gallery, square-pics (or circle), no dedicated captions (or hover), refs in own column (or inlined).
- Support as very-readable, kinda-reasonably-editable, very-compact layout. Direct visual link correlates textual info to corresponding photo, like opt#C and opt#F, but in significantly less screen-space. Also unlike opt#F and opt#C, horizontal-table-style means factiods can be sorted (e.g. how many guvs?), although the rough-draft wiki-text here does not actually implement such sorting right now (it is possible and not super-difficult to implement however). 75.108.94.227 (talk) 13:25, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

prefer layout-option H == table, candidates in horizontal rows, textual info cell-centered (or left-aligned), column of one-per-cell pics, circle-pics (or square), two-word captions (or no dedicated captions), refs in own column (or inlined).
- Weak Support, With Change (to square-pics). Good: sortable candidates-in-a-horizontal-row layout. Not-so-good: excess whitespace due to pic-in-a-single-cell decision. Dealbreaker: difficult to upgrade circle-pics (an NPOV issue -- we need to make it easy to swap bad pics). 75.108.94.227 (talk) 13:25, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

overall preference#1, regardless of other decisions: circle pics, square pics, either circle-or-square, no pics whatsoever?
- Strongly support Square and Weakly Oppose Circle, square-pics are easier to edit short-term (often need to swap in a new photo for NPOV reasons), and as more likely to attract new editors long-term (hassle of circle-style is a "slight" barrier... but we cannot afford to erect more wiki-policy & wiki-consensus barriers). 75.108.94.227 (talk) 13:25, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It looks better with circle-pics YoursT (talk) 00:38, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Note: The above user's bangvote has been moved, and then clarified, per usertalk-discussion. More clarification may yet be forthcoming. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 12:11, 17 August 2015 (UTC) [reply]

overall preference#2, regardless of other decisions: list-style bulleted-sentences, vertical-style candidate-in-a-table-column, horizontal-style candidate-in-a-table-row, two of the above, three of the above?
- Strongly support horizontal-table and Weakly Support bulleted-list and Oppose vertical-table, horizontal-table has built-in support for click-to-sort (vertical-table does not), bulleted-list is simplest to edit for beginners (almost no wiki-syntax), and "minor" but worth mentioning, vertical-table usually means cell-centered text which is recurringly-annoying e.g. adding inline refs "messes up" the aesthetics. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 13:25, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

overall preference#3, regardless of other decisions: full captions, one-word captions, hover-captions, prefer no dedicated captions?
- Depends on layout-choice, but full captions are generally bad as repetitively verbose, and hover-captions are generally not-so-good as undiscoverable by non-tech-savvy readership. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 13:25, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

overall preference#4, regardless of other decisions: refs should be inlined, refs should be in own row/column/region (in other words, refs closely attached to info they back up, versus refs visually out of the way)?
- Strongly support inlined refs per WP:V, and per the corollary, that unless we habitually inline refs directly on the factoid they back up, reliably-sourced material will be deleted as allegedly-'unsourced' ... merely because the source was an inch to the right or whatever. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 13:25, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

overall preference#5, regardless of other decisions: should err on the side of mobile compatibility / accessibility / ease of editing , or should err on the side of maximizing visual aesthetics while retaining 99.4% compat/access/ease?
- Strongly support 100% compat/access/ease per "the encyclopedia anyone can edit" ... that said, support as much aesthetic beauty as we can manage, without ever infringing on five nines compat/access/ease goal. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 13:25, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vote Rationale (Explain your vote here)

Option C The table makes an efficient and effective organization of name, highest office/profession, campaign, and relevant links. The table is clean and simple. The list, in many ways, is less clean. Additionally, the table need not be shrunk as candidates drop out. By using a strikethrough for name, and using a grey color to fade the text, and replacing "campaign" with "dropped out: MMDDYY", the reader can see how the field has changed, while still including the basic information relevant to the overall campaign.

The circular photographs fit well into the text, they are of good resolution, they are clean, they are modern, much like the direction many internet sites take. A clean, modern, effective approach is something the average reader likely appreciats. The labels, including last-name-only, are good for desktop and mobile readers alike; labels appear when hovered over, as desktop users do, and the last-name-only label appears fixed on a mobile device, and thus, takes only a sliver of space. Both parties' logos are free-use, either below threshold of originality (DNC), or not copyrighted in a historical deadzone (RNC). These highlight the identity of the party.

My greatest motivation here was efficiency, cleanliness, and aesthetic quality. Removing tables and using small, thumbnail images makes this article very bland. In fact, it is a long list, and while headings exist, is relatively unorganized. These improvements for major parties break up the monotonous list which the article would otherwise be, placing information in a logical, unbiased, clean, and efficient organization. These are my reasons, my motives, and I hope you support them - they need not be absolute, tweaks can be made, but basic structure is sound. Spartan7W § 00:03, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned previously, I personally prefer the Option C. I do feel like the table is the best way to display the information for the candidates, especially since there are so many of them. The table format allows a person to quickly pick out the candidate they want and look at the information associated with them. The list format does not do that. Also, including the picture with the information (instead of down below) is a better option as it was disjointed before. For ease of use, I say the combined option is the best. As for the rectangular vs. circular photos, either or is fine in my opinion. --Stabila711 (talk) 01:43, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Had a whole rational written out but it got eaten by an edit conflict and I don't have the time to try and recreate it from memory. Suffice to say, I find the tables far more desirable than the original system of a list and gallery, and I have actively worked to combine the two in the past with mixed results. Option C takes that idea to its conclusion. At the same time, beyond the initial setup given you can't have more than six or seven candidates per row before it runs off the page (a problem that extends to galleries as well), I don't see any additional difficulties in editing when compared to what was present before. --Ariostos (talk) 01:38, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Option C is looking great. Although I'm not a 100% on the circular image it seems to be the only option to have the images even and balanced. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 02:39, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Option C IMO, the most aesthetically pleasing option. User-friendly as well, both for readers and editors. I think Ariostos sums it up very well.--NextUSprez (talk) 04:14, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vote: Option C I support Option C as well. Option A is very good too but Option C keeps everything from cluttering. CloudKade11 (talk) 04:22, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Option C: Combines the best features of A and B. Nations United (talk) 04:32, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Option C I prefer option C. It's a concise combination of the other two options. For the Republican candidates, there should be a 3rd column of text so the pictures sync with the text. The images should be adjusted for the second row as well. In addition, there should be a legend explaining what each column means.David O. Johnson (talk) 05:09, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Preference for Option C. As others have said, it combines the best features of options A and B. I agree with Stabila711's ratinale for moving the refs below the names. As for the images, no particular preference for either circular or rectangular, either would be fine. However, I do think we should use official photos for all candidates. That would probably be the simplest, most consistent, and least contentious course to take.--Rollins83 (talk) 14:09, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prefer C. Wikipedia exists for readers; and I think Option C is the cleanest and easiest to read. It is more difficult to edit; but many articles use tables and learning their syntax is an important part of learning to edit here. I also prefer the circular images, but that's just me. I wouldn't have a problem with rectangular ones. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 14:11, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

B - Per K-I-S-S. Tarc (talk) 14:38, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I support B for reasons already stated. I strongly oppose the circle images for the reasons stated by 75.108.94.227 in the discussion area.--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:30, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, agreed... but as I mentioned, the circle-vs-square thing is really not a deal-breaker, since that can be separated... at least, it can be if we clean up this RfC a bit. So, William, can you please extend the hand of wiki-niceness to Spartan7W, and both of you clean up this bangvote section? It was a pain to read through it all. I don't want to bangvote myself, until we get (1) the discussion-stuff moved to the discussion-area, and highly-preferably (2) get all the viable options listed, rather than just option#B_status_quo and option#C_big_change_all_bundled_together.

Done Best, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 20:27, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rectangular photos for reasons given above. Also I suggest using a packed gallery to eliminate all the white space, e.g. the starting gallery tag could be

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:23, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and rationales above this line, were made when only option#C and option#B were being offered. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 02:20, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Option C would look much better if it were left aligned. Centering the table doesn't make much sense.--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:22, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

William, so perhaps you are now sounding like you are weak-support-with-changes for option#c? Do you agree that the descriptions I gave above are reasonable representations of the options? 75.108.94.227 (talk) 02:20, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

B Communicates clearly, accords with established WP style, and enables easy editing on any device. Why fuck with it? "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Writegeist (talk) 02:23, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps because with seventeen candidates, the traditional list-layout starts to seem broken, and in need of fixing? Even without seventeen names, though, I would like to have the info be user-sortable, so that instead of needing to manually eyeball which candidates were governors, and which are former versus current governors, the reader could simply click the column-header. (Sort-capability becomes more valuable if we add DOB and such.) Some of the other folks making suggestions are more interested in aesthetics. Personally, I would like to see a balance between ease of editing (even for wiki-beginners using the VizEd on a tablet), ease of reading and research (sortable dataset && paste-into-spreadsheet option), and aesthetic beauty (plus ideally compactness for readers with 4" smartphone screens). We cannot have it all, but mayhap we can have most of it. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 04:45, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Realistically, once the style is settled, there will be little editing, except for graying-out dropped-out candidates, like I have experimented with in my sandbox User:Spartan7W/sandbox (see the Republican table, Theodore Roosevelt). Spartan7W § 05:12, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

“[B]ecause with seventeen candidates, the traditional list-layout starts to seem broken, and in need of fixing?” Not really. Looks fine on lappy and iPhone. Love the Jindal horror movie shot by the way; and Trump and Walker both verge on the hilarious. Writegeist (talk) 06:04, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that the list-layout looks fine, and can be read. I just don't think it is the *optimal* organization, for ease-of-reader-comparison. The places where we list all candidates, should make comparisons easy. Readers that want details on any one candidate, can read that candidate's article. As a comparison-section, aka for ease of comparison, with five candidates list-layout is no problem, with ten it is difficult, with fifteen I find it noticeably worse (as a way of comparing & contrasting the details... distinct from simply linearly reading through them once). I'd rather have a table, that can be sorted. Not all the table-options support sorting, e.g. I don't think wiki-technology is advanced enough yet to properly sort option#F and option#C, since they are candidate-in-a-vertical-row layout styles. (Also, agree about the NPOV photos... which is one of the reasons I strongly disagree with Spartan7W about the hindrance the circle-pics will represent... besides Jindal, I also had issues with Christie (since fixed in-place by Spartan7w), with Bush, with Santorum, and a few others... I think swapping will be the norm, at least for several more months. (But I also think that the circle-vs-square question is, and should be kept, separate from the h-table vs v-table vs list-layout decision.) 75.108.94.227 (talk) 12:28, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Option F After seeing the rectangle photos and everything inline I have changed my vote from C to F. I prefer this layout for many of the same reasons as C. It is clean and very easy to read. The information for each candidate is compact and your eyes don't have to constantly move up and down between a list and a gallery of pictures. In addition, I have looked at the option on both an iPad and on a Samsung Galaxy S6. On the iPad, it looks solid. No problems whatsoever. On the S6, you do have to scroll left and right to see all the candidates but that isn't a problem. However, the names are a bit wonky. I believe this is caused by the refs being inline with the names. They are being pushed over too much. Perhaps having them on their own line would fix this? Finally, as to the ease of editing. I joined the Wiki 3 days ago and I can say I am not having trouble with the code of Option F. Disclaimer: I do have some coding experience in other languages. At this point in the race it is unlikely (but not impossible) that anyone else is going to join. So the only editing that needs to be done in the future is dropouts. The way the code is in F, I do not foresee a problem with editing dropouts (a simple strike-through would suffice). --Stabila711 (talk) 05:14, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stabila711, you are speaking of the near-term-future editing of the 2016 candidates... what about the long-term-future editing of the 2020 candidates, and the 2024 candidates? We will have a long list of candidates, at least one of those cycles, who have been in "5+ national polls" at least three *years* before the culmination. I'm not arguing that circle-pics are a "heavy burden" for the 2016 election, I'm mainly arguing they are a long-term editor-recruitment mistake, that will also hurt us in the short term (non-NPOV circle-pics for Jindal/Santorum/etc right now that need swapping). But more crucially they will hurt us, in the long-term; umpteen circle-pics for the multi-year run-up to 2020 and 2024 and so on. Also, what about lower-profile elections, like u.s. reps, and especially like state legislator candidates? If we switch to circle-pic style, the first 'handy' pic that is circle-styled, will likely be the final pic, for that specific election. (And once a circle pic exists, it will be tempting to re-use it again and again, rather than update with a more recent photo, due to the circle-fiddling hassle.) Square-pics are better, because they are significantly easier to edit, even for people with programming experience like you and myself, but especially for people who are barely computer-literate (aka ... no BLP violation intended ... about 75% of incumbent state legislator candidates). 75.108.94.227 (talk) 12:28, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I like Option C & Option H because the circular photos of the candidates makes it look like campaign buttons which is appropriate for an article with presidential candidates. Option G is the worst option proposed because it kind of looks like the butterfly ballot! Prcc27 (talk) 22:54, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

arbitrary section break#A

Option F (Change of preference from Option C). Like C, combines the best features of A and B, but is better organized and less burdensome for editors.--Rollins83 (talk) 18:26, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Option F. I agree with the rationale given above by Stabila711. Of all the currently proposed options, I find F to be the most eye-pleasing, best organized and formatted, and most accessible. It has a less "busy" look than most of the others, and provides a helpful "at-a-glance" readability. Also appears to be easier and simpler to edit than the other options.--JayJasper (talk) 21:02, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

---> Subset option: For those who like my layout in Option C, but dislike circular images and voted for Option F, I have added a link below that option to view the same table, organization, party format, with squares instead of circles. You may denote square preference of Option C with squares in your votes/amendments if you like it. Option F is a different format that Option C, images aren't the sole change. @Stabila711: @Rollins83: @Writegeist: @JayJasper: @Smallbones: - Spartan7W § 21:37, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One difference between the C subset and F option is that the C subset is centered whereas the F option is left-aligned, in line with the rest of the page. In the C subset, the Republican table is longer and runs off the page on some browsers. In the F option, the Republican table is limited to six candidates per line in order to avoid that issue. The last major difference is that the C subset continues to separate the references from the named candidates making it difficult to determine which reference goes with which candidate. F option fixes that problem by placing the references immediately below the corresponding name of any particular candidate.--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:20, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another difference, minor but worth noting, is the picture-dimensions. Option#C_with_squarePics (aka opt#C_square versus original opt#C_circle) uses relatively-large imagesizes, whereas opt#F_square (as opposed to hypothetical opt#F_circle which is also easy to implement should we wish) takes up much less space because the imagesizes are much smaller in width.

The more serious downside: C_square + F_square + C_circle + F_circle options all suffer from the use of vertical one-candidate-per-column-layout, aka the v-table style, which is not click-to-sort, due to limitations of wiki-javascript at the moment. Contrast with opt#H_square, a similar idea but with an h-table (one-candidate-per-row), which *is* wiki-sortable.

Personally I think all of these (C/F/H_square && C/F/H_circle) take up entirely too much whitespace. I prefer opt#G, if we want the pics to be integrally-tied to the textual info (but with a sortable one-candidate-per-row type of table), or opt#D, if we want a more wiki-traditional layout-style (also with sortable h-table). See also maximally-compact opt#E with hover-captions. One of my major annoyances with the wiki-traditional list-style (aka opt#B) is that it cannot be sorted; opt#C and opt#F do not fix that lack. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 18:00, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn’t there also be a “Vote Irrational” section? Writegeist (talk) 00:59, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

General Discussion

I like the table in the proposed section and the image format on the original. Is there a way to combine both. Such as add the images from the original and add them to the table from the proposed. Such as look at the Simple English Wikipedia; I like how the images are there, but the background info about each candidate should be in table format. Plus a suggestion; can we change Rand Paul, Donald Trump, Chris Christie and John Kasich images to the ones from Simple English? As I said I like both and if we combine both it'd be great. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:06, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Simple English uses the same organization as the original. The only difference is that it lists the full name and profession of the candidates. I favor that as well.--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:11, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As do I. Can I add those images in the table created by Saturn and see how it goes?--TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:15, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will not comment on this RfC because of WP:CANVASS. Prcc27 (talk) 00:19, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the Christie and Paul images Simple English uses are good, but I do not favor the image of Donald Trump they use because it is from 2011. The images should be contemporaneous with this election.--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:21, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Age of a photo is not as important as its quality and representative nature. Jeb Bush's appearance has changed since 2011, whereas Ted Cruz is very near. That is the important factor. If an official portrait looks like the person today, then no change should be done. Official portraits are of highest quality. Spartan7W § 00:27, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Addition: I have just added the combined option Spartan7W § 00:47, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That I may comment, the way the Saturn has edited this page following Tarc's revision of my proposed has made it such that a table is even more logical, with all this free info floting under small thumbnails. Spartan7W § 00:51, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. All I did was add captions to the gallery. There is no need for a table.--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:52, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Captions exist within the bounds of a thumbnail. Those are external text areas, which, I might add, are redundant to the above list. Tell me, why not have a table? They organize information. Spartan7W § 00:55, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because we don't need you to do any more style experiments on this page. A list and gallery is how it is best organized for easier editing and flow.--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:57, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The table separates everything and makes it hard to edit.--William S. Saturn (talk) 01:02, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tables organize. Your 'captions' feature the exact information, minus campaign link, as the line-item list. Thus, they are redundant. A table organized information per candidate. You can see name (or name+pic), office, campaign link, and references in one location. The name is made a darker background to emphasize seperation between sections. Having everything loose and unbound isn't organized. A table is not a style experiment. And as for style changes, what is wrong? Wikipedia is completely different from 2004. Spartan7W § 01:18, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I already explained to you, the table separates the references and other information from the actual candidates. That is what the list is for. The gallery is merely there to supplement the list. A table makes it difficult to make changes to update the page as needed. Why are you sacrificing usability for gimmicky style experimentation? This is an encyclopedia not your personal sandbox.--William S. Saturn (talk) 01:24, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your rationale is an indictment of every table. We should eliminate every table, every infobox from pages. Those are gimmicky. A table is not a gimmick. Tables collate and organize information. Lists become cluttered, especially with 17 candidates being listed. Your 'gallery' still features redundant information which your list includes. Mere opposition to change is not a substantive rationale against a table, or anything else. Spartan7W § 01:30, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I precisely said I wasn't sure where to leave my comment because I've never voted on a talk page like this. I apologize if I did it incorrectly but there is no reason to call me a vandal or a troll. Especially when I fixed my mistake. You're clearly sociopathic seeing how many arguments you're involved in. Also, I just looked back and I've realized what the issue is that occurred. I have an extension on my laptop that adds Donald Trump quotes to his name whenever it's mentioned anywhere on the internet. I think it accidentally put them there when I was editing. lol But like I said on my talk page, William S Saturn is still showing erratic behavior whenever responding to anybody and it's difficult to engage in a proper conversation with him that would help make progress. If you don't believe me about the Donald Trump extension, it's called "The Trumpweb". I've since then disabled it. CloudKade11 (talk) 05:47, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment William S Saturn has had a personal vendetta against most of my election work, I'm not surprised.Spartan7W § 04:51, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now, now. Lets not let emotions get in the way of a discussion. It is counterproductive. Just out of curiosity how long do these RFCs usually last before a decision is made? --Stabila711 (talk) 05:07, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spartan7W just fell for a vandal/troll. Not surprising.--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:23, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Will you please get a life and stop attacking me? Spartan7W § 05:27, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to support the table in C only if references are not placed in a separate row, but immediately following the candidate name. I would prefer rectangular images be used as well.--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:19, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References should have their own row. The purpose of a table is organization. Footnotes' purpose are obvious, and their seperation makes everything clean Spartan7W § 05:27, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now hold on a minute. We are moving in the right direction here. And I actually agree with William on the citations. The citations are for their announcements. So in this section that lists who is running I believe they should go after their name. However, I do like the circular photos better now that I have seen them (and gotten used to them). Spartan, would you mind throwing together one with rectangular pictures just to be sure? --Stabila711 (talk) 05:33, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you're not willing to agree on something that simple then you have no interest in improving this page.--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:31, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't your show. There are reasons a basic structure like this exists. If the footnotes are placed with the name, it won't look clean, and the basic organizational purpose of the table is compromised. Footnotes in a separate section emphasize both: a) the table is well-cited b) a handy, proprietary place to find them. @Stabila711: Now that you like circles, I don't think I'll indulge you

. I will work on after my sleep, and link you the test version. Spartan7W § 05:46, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're not being reasonable. This separation makes it difficult for sources to be added and removed. When editing, it is difficult to tell which source belongs to which candidate.--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:50, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spartan, he does have a point in the event that citations must be edited. Since each candidate only has 2 or 3 cites each, I do not think it will cause too much "uncleanliness" to have them next to the name. I await your rectangular example. --Stabila711 (talk) 05:53, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

arbitrary section break #1

In practice, it doesn't look right having them with the names. 2-3 refs moves the name over left, and it the name isn't centered. You have to count the amount of "|" you pass on your way down, refs are another case. Plus, references are for FEC filing + proof of candidacy announced, etc. They aren't bare refs, and are solid now. If they drop out its one ref to add. Spartan7W § 05:57, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair reasoning. Would it be an acceptable compromise if we moved the refs underneath the name? On their own line? That way everything remains centered, the refs are after the name, and since they should remain easy to edit if and when they need to be. --Stabila711 (talk) 06:07, 13 August 2015 (UTC) CloudKade11 do not undo my post because you don't like it. Your undo was unwarranted and unappreciated.[reply]

Look at my sandbox: User:Spartan7W/sandbox This is what they look like next to, and below. The below is borderline, but if you go to edit, you'll see that it creates an equal problem in editing, which is still minimal in the present proposed location. Also, for republicans, the reflink section sepearates the top and bottom rows, without that, it might look like the top's campaign link goes to the bottom. Spartan7W § 06:04, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may be overthinking the separation problem between the rows. The slightly darker shading on the name line would delineate the "campaign" link of the upper candidate from the lower candidate's information. I would have to see the Republican lineup in order to be completely sure though. As to the editing, I still have to agree with William. Unless you can add notes into the editing window (like in a coding language) I find having the refs next to the name makes it easier to determine what ref goes with what person. When they are down below, they are just a solid block of refs with the only thing separating them is a |. At least when they are below the name you can easily see where the ref ends and the next person begins by looking for the [[ ]]. Just my two cents on the matter. --Stabila711 (talk) 06:20, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some not-so-brief points:

The discussion above is a mess. It is not helpful to ask for outside comments, and then have the outsiders slog through all that. Strongly strongly suggest that User:Spartan7W and User:William S. Saturn cooperate together, and pair that stuff down: move the back-n-forth commentary, and the evolving-the-style-discussion, completely out of the bangvoting area. Delete nothing, but move it all into this 'discussion' subsection of the RfC, and out of the bangvoting area. Leave bangvoting rationales, but *brief* ones only; anything more than ~~100 words, move it out of the bangvoting area and into a dedicated subsection, or use Template:collapsetop to keep down the visual clutter. Please, pretty please. Done
I also note plenty of counterproductive and tangential commentary. This is, and must be, a discussion on the merits of the proposals, as they relate to improving the encyclopedia. WP:AGF and WP:NICE apply on all wikipedia pages, at all times. Please, pretty please, with a 'pedia on top.

picture shape, two big policy-backed reasons to prefer squares to circles

On the substantive issues: circular imagefiles are a bad idea. The look 'more modern' and cooler, sure. But see WP:NOTFACEBOOK. They are harder to edit. The average editor, especially a beginning editor, is not going to be able to upload an improved imagefile, because they won't be able to (or won't want to go through the hassle of) figuring out how to apply the cookie-cutter-crop-maneuver. Strongly against circle-pics, on that basis.
For different reasons, selecting non-official imagefiles is a bad idea. Here is proposal#A.[2] Look at, just for instance, the Christie photo (user-selected) versus the Cruz photo (official senate portrait). Christie does not look his best there, which makes this an NPOV issue. He is a sitting governor; we have smiling-portraits of him, and such were in use until June 11th 2015.[3] Roughly on June 15th it changed to this open-mouth pic.[4] By the time of June 20th it was this unsmiling-pic.[5] The pic in proposal#A is a variation on that last one, probably taken at the same event, but not an exact duplicate (even ignoring the circle-styling), and is probably the worst of the four options. In order to upload a fix for this NPOV bug, I would have to first figure out how to apply circle-styling. Therefore, circle-styling is a problem. Moreover, we should strive to pick the most neutral, BLP-compliant pic we have, of every single politician... and doubly-especially so in galleries, where it is easy to make some look good and some look bad. To be clear, I'm not accusing any of the pic-modification-editors above of doing anything wrong; but I am pointing out that ease-of-picture-replacement is a significant issue, with respect to the pillars at WP:5. Pillar two is specifically non-negotiable: wikipedia *must* stay neutral, if at all possible, and circle-pics hinder that; I would agree that perhaps they only "mildly" hinder neutrality, perhaps, but no hindrance is far better. Strongly in favor of square-pics, on that basis.

The three proposals mentioned, are woefully incomplete, compared to the actual list of feasible/reasonable/available layout-options. This is not a question of, should we go with vert-oriented-table-layout AND round-pics, or should we stick with list-plus-gallery-layout, or should we 'compromise' with vert-oriented-style AND round-pics but use a gallery. There are plenty of other options... and plenty of niggly details that should not be decided on an all-or-nothing basis. For starters, the issue I discussed immediately above (circle-pic versus square-pic) is completely 100% orthogonal to any other decisions made. We can have circle-pics with ANY page-style; we can also have square-pics with ANY page-style. Therefore, it is wrong to bundle that circle-vs-round decision, in with the proposals, at all, in any way; that decision is completely unrelated to the other big-picture decisions about page-layout. The decision on circle-vs-square should be made separately, with dedicated bangvotes.
Along the same lines, there are other niggly-detail aspects to this RfC, which only apply in very limited hypothetical circumstances: for instance, the question of whether the refs should be next to the candidate-name, or in a column (or location for a list-style-layout) of their own, is NOT related to the overall big-picture question, of whether to use a table or a list, and if so, what table-orientation to use. Long arguments about whether the refs look better here, or instead look better over here, are not helping us make the big-picture decisions. Until the big-picture decisions are made, they just clutter up the discussion and make the RfC too "scary".

the big picture questions: Q#1 pics with text or separated, Q#2 text in list-style or vert-table-style or horizontal-table-style, Q#3 what textual info

Here are the big-picture questions about layout: first, should we use a gallery, underneath the textual info, or should we put the pics right next to the textual info? If we should put the pics next to the textual info, aka use a table with embedded pics, then the subsidiary question is, should we use a vert-table-layout with pics-in-a-row and cell-centered-textual-info, such as proposal#C, or should we instead use a horizontal-table-layout with pics-in-a-column and left-justified-textual-info, such as found at List of presidents of the United States see option#H. For the record, I find both styles extremely annoying to read, and pretty annoying to edit -- there is way WAY too much whitespace, and the wiki-table-syntax is *very* painful compared to the wiki-list-syntax, especially for beginning editors.
Second big-picture-layout-issue, if we opt for a gallery of pics underneath as in proposal#B and option#D, or should the gallery be right-justified aka next to the textual info, as for instance used in Timeline of United States history#1900 see option#E or the textually-correlated-variation option#G. In other words, just because we aren't gonna put the pics into a row of our table, or a column of our table, doesn't mean we cannot use a table! We can have a gallery underneath see option#D, and a table above (rather than a list), similar to proposal#A see option#A which differs from option#D in that it is a vertically-oriented-table and thus unsortable. Or, we can have a gallery to the right, and a table to the left see option#E... ~~no such proposal has been mentioned, as yet, that I saw.~~ Or, we can have a gallery to the right, and a list to the left... again, no such proposal has been mentioned, as yet, that I saw. there is not yet such an option on the table , if anyone wants this go ahead and add it, or ask me on my talkpage and I'll add this variations
Third big-picture issue, which is mostly but not entirely orthogonal to the choices above... what "textual information" ought we include? Proposal#A suggests we need name, pic, peak-job-title, peak-job-title-datespan, standalone wikilink to campaign (as opposed to just linking direct from the candidate-name like Gilmore for instance), and a refs-column (separated from the direct-backup location for stylistic reasons). The same textual contents are used in proposal#C, just arranged with a vert-table-layout with row-of-pics, rather than a vert-table-layout with gallery-underneath-of-pics. A more-natural table would be a horizontal-table-layout, which mirrors the current contents of the list-style used in proposal#B aka status-quo layout used in most presidential election articles at present ... but as mentioned before, such alternatively are NOT being mentioned, and are not being discussed, which perhaps is a contributory factor, to skewing this RfC into counterproductive commentary about the motives of other editors. The content of proposal#B includes pretty much the same content as is being utilized in the existent proposals#B and #C. This is reasonable, of course, for a layout-change-only-RfC, and I do not suggest going outside that reasonable pathway lightly. The reason I bring up the idea, that we might want to have more (or fewer) factoids in our list of textual information, is simply this: if we are going to keep the list-style, then name/biggestJob/datespan/refs is pretty much the maximum we can offer, plus the ancillary pics-gallery. However, if we are going to switch from list-style to table-style (preferably the horizontal-candidates-with-left-justified-info style rather than the awkward vertical-candidates-with-center-justified-info style), we have the organizational option to add more textual info.
Some specific additions worth considering: somebody above mentioned they would like to see the birthplace and/or home state of the candidates: Bush is TX/FL, Clinton is OH/AR/NY, Christie is NJ/NJ/NJ/NJ/NJ, and so on. That is hard to put into a list-style-sentence, but easy to put into a table-organization, right? I'd like to see the age && birthyear of the candidates; some were born in the 1940s, meaning they will be as old as Reagan was, and thus statistically unlikely to be the nominee, whereas others were born in the 1970s, which means they are Constitutionally eligible for the presidency, but statistically unlikely to be the nominee this time around. For some other examples of what might be possible, either in list-style or in table-style layouts, see the background-sentences of the candidates used at the top of each subsection in the alphabetical-order comparative-endorsements-article.

Sorry about the long list. I realize there is some irony, in complaining that the discussion above is too noisy and scary... and then posting a long scary comment of my own. But look, I put *my* long scary comment in the discussion-area, not in the bangvote area! ;-) Hope this is helpful, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 19:28, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

arbitrary section break #2

I have to oppose a horizontal-table-layout like in List of presidents of the United States because of the number of Republican candidates and the perceived bias that may present. Unlike, the past presidents, this election is still ongoing. How do you choose who is on top and who you have to scroll down to see? Do you do it by when the entered the race? Do you do it alphabetically? With Option C we can see all the candidates, more or less, at once without having to scroll around looking for who we want. Every candidate is there giving the idea that nobody is "ahead" of anyone else (whether or not that is just an illusion). As to the additional information, we should be careful about adding irrelevant information. A candidates birth date and place of birth/residence really has nothing to do with their candidacy. If a user wants to know that information they can look at their bio page. I feel like this page should focus more on the election at hand. So their candidacy page and their credentials (highest office, etc.) are more important to me than when they were born. --Stabila711 (talk) 19:49, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No legal precedent exists for the use of New Jersey state files as free-use images, thus we can't use Christie's official. I have updated a more smiling picture from the same event. @75.108.94.227: What part of option 'C' is "woefully incomplete"? Although I do intend to withdraw option A, as Option C has turned out superior. Spartan7W § 19:49, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

side discussion of a particular circle-pic, and the state-governmental-works-licensing-laws of the state of New Jersey

I believe https://www.usa.gov/government-works says that "official" photos are not copyrighted as long as they were taken "as part of that person's official duties." You should be fine with using Christie's official photo at least that is how I read that page. --Stabila711 (talk) 20:06, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"United States Government" being the operative word. Works published by the State of New Jersey are under a semi-sovereign jurisdiction, and the U.S. federal government has no authority. In California, legal precedent establishes free-use, but not in NJ Spartan7W § 20:09, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Christie's photo is shown on the official NJ website (under Contact Us) and Section F of NJ Legal says that "anyone may view, copy or distribute State information found here without obligation to the State." The state seal is the only thing that is explicitly copyrighted. --Stabila711 (talk) 20:18, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note the omission of 'modify'. I believe Spartan7W is correct about NJ law being distinct from federal-public-domain-law. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 20:21, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Spartan7W, what I meant was, opt#C (vert-table with row-of-pics) versus opt#B (list-style with gallery underneath) versus no other options mentioned is woefully incomplete. What about ~~option#D~~ actually called option#H now, horizontal-table-with-column-of-pics? What about ~~option#E~~ see actual option#D, horizontal-table-without-pics and gallery underneath? What about ~~option#F~~ see option#E, horizontal-table-without-pics and gallery to the right? There are a few other sensible variations, too. User:Stabila711 objects to ~~option#D~~option#H, above, and so do I, even though I "suggested" it as a viable option. What does Stabila711 think about ~~option#F~~option#E and option#G, though? Who knows, because the RfC is not offering all the viable options. It is offering a false choice, and the choices themselves are mutating as the RfC proceeds. Both bad. Make sense? Part of the reason for all the discussion, and part of the reason for the terse hardliner rationales paired with bangvotes for sticking with option#B status quo, is because you are presenting an all-or-nothing change. You don't need to do that. Circle-pics are not required for option#A, nor for option#C, right? So separate them out, and let the small details be decided later (circle-vs-square), in a separate talkpage-consensus, once the big-picture layout questions (B vs C vs D vs E vs F vs MaybeMore) have been answered.

p.s. You miss my point about the Christie-pic, although I do thank you for updating it per NPOV anyways... and maybe we can get the Chris Christie pic similarly fixed, but it is less of a problem since it is not right next to his competitors. But my main point, was that you can update the circle-Christie, sure... but without going through a lot of hassle, I myself could not update the circle-Christie, with a smiling-or-neutral-Christie, because all our smiley-Christie-pics are square. I actually think the circle-pics are cool, they are reminiscent of the 1800s political placards with the potus and veep in little circles... but circle-pics are a Bad Idea for an ongoing potus election, too hard to edit/swap them. The immediately-previous comment was by 75.108, but during the move to this subpage, something got scrambled. User:Stabila711, one of your comments may have been lost? ~~User:Stabila711 (talk) 20:20, 13 August 2015 (UTC)~~ -- 75.108.blah.blah .[reply]

@Stabila711:Further reading of this language doesn't guarantee free use. @75.108.94.227: I don't think its a false choice. There is the way it is, or there is an option which makes a table to hold them in. Technically, you could copy & past the tables from each party's candidates page, but these would use up space and provide specific detail that the general election page doesn't need. Spartan7W § 20:23, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is a textbook case of a false choice; emphasis added by moi. "A false dilemma (also called... false binary, black-and-white thinking, ...the either–or fallacy, ...or the fallacy of the excluded middle) is a type of informal fallacy that involves a situation in which only limited alternatives are considered, when in fact there is at least one additional option. You are setting up a choice between opt#B versus opt#C, when in fact, opt#C is a big bundle of not-specifically-related changes (e.g. the circle-or-square decision could easily be made a separate discussion later), and more crucially, ignores/elides/does-not-mention opt#D opt#E opt#F and others that I alluded to above. People are bangvoting for B or for C, but they should be given the offer of bangvoting for the alternative options, if we want the bangvote to be maximally conducive to producing lasting consensus. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 20:36, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If we have 6 options, or even 4, we would likely never receive consensus, and be stuck with a bland list. As for photos, its not an excessive issue. Wikipedia is not news, and we're 2-3 candidates away from having good, portrait quality shots for all of them. Portrait changes shouldn't be done all the time. Spartan7W § 20:44, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that offering more options, can make the RfC get more cluttered. Hence my suggestion that you and William S. Saturn do some severe cooperate cleanup of the RfC bangvote-section, which is already super-cluttered, despite having only two options. However, I note that RfC questions with five options are possible, see this example. People can vote 'support' on multiple options, and 'oppose' on multiple options. Personally, I oppose option C as written, because it includes circle-pics (too hard to edit/swap), and because it includes pics-embedded-in-the-table-one-per-column (too much wasteful whitespace), and because it is vertical-table-layout (much less natural than horizontal-table-layout for comparing the candidate-details). Thus, since I cannot support opt#C ... and since I am not being offered ~~opt#F~~opt#G or something that I would rather have than opt#B ... I am stuck with bangvoting for the status quo. Anyways, you don't have to offer all the options. Wikipedia policy doesn't insist that you offer them. But I suggest, unless you really REALLY insist that it is opt#C or nothing, you consider offering the other viable options. Bangvote-consensus on a false-choice-RfC never lasts long, because sooner or later, somebody realizes that all the bangvotes were about opt#B versus opt#C ... when what they wanted was opt#F or whatever... and starts a new round of RfC bangvoting. Up to you, though. If it is a choice between opt#B and opt#C, only, then I am forced to stick with opt#B, despite non-optimality of that choice. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 21:05, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The exact specifics can always be tweaked later. Personally, I voted for C for the layout and solely for the layout. The information contained within the layout was a secondary conclusion that I decided on later and had no bearing on my original vote. I prefer Option C's layout and I feel that if I could conceive of a better layout I would mention it. Since I can't, Options D though Z wouldn't have a bearing on my decision. --Stabila711 (talk) 20:49, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And nobody, least of all me, is saying you cannot prefer opt#C above all others. :-) I disagree with your layout-pick, since I think some variation on ~~opt#F~~opt#G would be preferable... but ~~opt#F~~opt#G is not on the table. Are you against adding ~~opt#F~~opt#G to the list of available choices? (I also disagree with opt#C because of the circle-pics... and think that there should be two variations, opt#C_squared and opt#C_circled, but that is another matter, which has since been corrected -- opt#C is now offered as either-circle-or-square, and opt#F is a square-pic variation with inline-refs.) 75.108.94.227 (talk) 21:05, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point. And the pictures are irrelevant at this point. I choose Option C for the layout. I am not against other options but I do not feel like any other layout option would persuade me from C. How many layout options are there though? We have the current version which I don't like since the information on the candidates is disjointed from the pictures and information below the pictures. I don't like the List of presidents of the United States layout since it can be used for bias purposes. I don't like the Timeline of the United States history#1900 layout since the pictures would again be disjointed from the information and it would be difficult to align them properly with their information (especially as window size grows/shrinks). I do feel like the layout in Option C is the best layout for both ease of reading and information layout. --Stabila711 (talk) 21:16, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Well, the pic-shapes are unfortunately not irrelevant for the RfC, because opt#C specifically mandates circle-pics.~~ Now corrected. I agree that opt#C layout-style is orthogonal to the choice of circle-pics or square-pics... but we need to convince folks that opt#C_circle (the one offered above at the top) should be offered side-by-side with opt#C_square

Done (the same as above but with the circle-vs-square decision deferred to a future RfC decision). And yes, direct no-captions-needed alignment with textual info is the prime advantage of opt#C, so you are picking the correct option for your stated preferences/rationale. But the main downside to opt#C is that we have to read vertically, and cell-center the text, and most crucially, have tons and tons of whitespace around each textual-factoid. That makes *reading* the textual-factoids in the table hard, and especially *comparing* textual factoids across candidates. Hence my preference that image-files be separated. I have a possible scheme see option#G rough draft (sorting not implemented yet), that might accomplish both (call it option#G for the moment), but it is hard to explain in prose; I'll try to build a mockup in userspace now called opt#G above. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 23:01, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

arbitrary section break #3

I'm not voting since I don't have a particular preference here, but some comments are warranted:

Please stop bickering.
Please make it look nice. Over the next year+ this will be one of the most-visited pages on Wikipedia. I don't particularly care if circle pictures are used elsewhere or not -- if they look better than the alternative, then use them. (The argument that they are not used elsewhere in Wikipedia would, if applied everywhere, never allow Wikipedia to improve or change). Personally, I think that close-ups of the candidates' faces look better than wasting half the image space on their suits, but it doesn't matter (to me) if that is in a circle or a rectangle. Use the most flattering image available for each candidate: this will help avoid WP:NPOV issues with the images themselves.
Did I mention that the bickering needs to stop? I found this discussion and related discussions because the scope of the bickering has reached the talk pages of certain admins; and the circle picture discussion has reached Jimbo's talk page.
The page (and related election pages) probably need to be semi-protected. The arb-com warning will help, but IP-user and new-user vandalism is likely to pick up speed between now and the elections, and semi-protection will help to prevent the more impulsive varieties of vandalism. (Agenda-based ~~vandalism~~ edits will still need watchful editors, but semi-protection will help.) If a rule or guideline prevents semi-protecting these pages, this may be the time and place to apply WP:IAR and some common sense, and then go ahead and semi-protect the pages.
Whatever format is used, make sure it works well on mobile devices. Make sure it is accessible as well.
A consensus is needed regarding the order the parties will be listed in. I've noticed some changes lately that seem to be for the sole purpose of moving a particular party to the top of the page. Personally, I think it makes the most sense to list the major parties first, then the minor parties, with the parties within each group alphabetized. I suspect that is what people expect to find when they visit Wikipedia. If there is concern that, within the major-party group, this seems to give precedence to the Democrats, there could be a rotation set up whereby the order is rotated on a regular basis until the elections occur (e.g. The dems are listed first in odd-numbered months, GOP is first during even-numbered months, etc.).
Oh, and lest I forget, no more bickering.

I'm sure I'll think of something else later, but I hope this helps. Etamni | ✉ | ✓ 22:07, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~I have several things to bicker with you about!~~ Uh, strike that. ;-) If the circle-vs-square debate has reached JimboTalk, we are in danger of being collectively entered into WP:LAME. I also vote to end the bickering, and I furthermore continue to vote for moving all the bickering out of the bangvote area, and into the ~~bickering~~ reasoned discussion based on merit and wiki-policy subsection, which would be right here.

Done

p.s. On your substantive points, please see the two-reasons-circle-pics-are-bad-greenbox above (hard to edit&swap which is an npov issue). Agree about the major-parties-first, rotate ordering on last day of the month (better than first day of the month due to April Fool's Day being 2015-04-01). Agree about mobile-device && accessibility-to-the-blind support. Strongly disagree about your pre-emptive semi-prot motion, for obvious reasons. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 22:54, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

William S. Saturn, would you mind doing Option F for the Republican party? Since they have 17 candidates I feel like it would show how your option stands up to large amounts of data. Thanks! --Stabila711 (talk) 02:04, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I will do so later tonight if I have time.--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:09, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have changed my vote to F provisionally. I want to see if the 17 candidates look as nice as the 5 do on mobile devices. --Stabila711 (talk) 05:17, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have now updated the Republican candidates for Option F.--William S. Saturn (talk) 09:07, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moving Closer to Consensus

I wanted to add this new section to give an area where we can discuss potential consensus decisions separate from the general and vote discussions.

General Layout (List vs. Table) ... see also, "preference#2" bangvotes

As more people voice their opinions and reasons on the matter, I feel as if we have reached semi-consensus on at least the type of layout that should be used. The table layout (regardless of what it contains) has attracted many editors. This is certainly not the end of the discussion by any means. It seems like the main concern with the table style seems to be the ease of editing for users not already familiar with the code. Does anyone have additional reasons why we should stay with the status quo for list style? While I agree that this is a valid concern, I do not feel like it is an insurmountable concern.

I feel as if the main advantage of the table is that it allows ease of comparison between candidates. I feel as if 75.108.94.227 said it the best, "The places where we list all candidates, should make comparisons easy. Readers that want details on any one candidate, can read that candidate's article. As a comparison-section, aka for ease of comparison, with five candidates list-layout is no problem, with ten it is difficult, with fifteen I find it noticeably worse (as a way of comparing & contrasting the details... distinct from simply linearly reading through them once)."

At this point in time, are there any objections to a consensus on the table layout? Information contained within the table and how it is arranged is still up for discussion. --Stabila711 (talk) 07:13, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My main objection, is that I see three options: list, h-table, and v-table. Only the h-tables are sortable. Compare sortable-table-option-H (just added), versus non-sortable-option-C. The difference is that candidates in H are arranged one-per-row, and candidates in C are arranged one-per-column. If I'm wrong, and there is wiki-syntax to make v-tables like option#C with click-to-sort button, please let me know. Sortable right now: opt#D and opt#H. Sortable without much trouble, but rough-draft-versions are not-sortable-yet due to time pressure: opt#E and opt#G. Lists are inherently not sortable: opt#B. Vertical-tables are not sortable: opt#A opt#C opt#F. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 16:29, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

vertical tables cannot be sorted yet... it is possible to implement the javascript to do this, but would need some programmer-assistance to implement

75108 , hello, I have a table-syntax question. There is a sortable-keyword, which lets the reader cilck on a column-header, to sort the rows of the table by that column.
75108 , is there a way, to make a table that is sortable, which is organized *into* columns, rather than into rows?
75108 , In other words, so that the reader can click on a row-number, and have the columns-auto-sort-themselves into ascending left-to-right order on 1st click, then into descending left-to-right order on 2nd click?
myrcx , I'm not sure with your question I'm afraid, someone else may be able to help?
75108 , my understanding is that wiki-table syntax does not permit click-the-row-identifier-to-re-sort-all-the-columns ... whereas click the column-identifier-to-re-sort-all-the-rows is easy to accomplish.
Shirik, I'm not aware of a way to do that. That's not to say it's impossible, but that it hasn't been requested.
Shirik, Effectively the way the column sorting works is that it uses some javascript which has been added to the site and applies it accordingly. But that code isn't set up to support rows. But it could be.
75108 , there is an RfC where the different table styles are being discussed, and I wasn't sure that only one table-style was sortable, or not.
myrcx , I think Shirik knows what they're talking about a little more than me :P
75108 , yes, I understand that it is conceivable to implement the jscript... but as far as we know, such has not yet been done?
Shirik, correct; I don't believe it has been done. Not because people don't want it done, but likely just because it hasn't been asked for.
Shirik, It would be reasonable to start a discussion on [[WP:VPT]] about it
slakr , yeah, sorting by row is a much more complex js operation
slakr , as it requires rearranging an entire table or slicing out the row from the table
slakr , well "much more" as in involves an extra step
slakr , :P
75108 , yeah, cannot say I've seen it done... maybe google Docs supports it, as pivot table? But other than that, pretty hairy jscript.

I asked on the live-help-chat-IRC-channel-in-a-browser at WP:Q, and v-table sorting is not currently supported. It could be done, however, and somebody suggested asking at WP:VPT about the difficulty-level. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 17:34, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I never saw sorting as an issue with v-tables. I always viewed the sort ability as a necessity only when the table was so large that certain aspects couldn't be seen easily without first sorting them. With the purposed v-tables that problem isn't there. You can see every candidate, more or less, quickly and at the same time. I also have a problem with h-tables due to the potential bias they present (as previously mentioned). How do you decide who is on top vs way down below? I am versed in java coding so I could take a look at a sort code for the v-tables but I would need to know how the Wiki integrates the script into its coding. Is it a simply copy/paste or are there specific tags I have to use? --Stabila711 (talk) 18:58, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(( I can tell you from experience that the process for getting a javascript/php upgrade accomplished, borders on mass insanity. :-) I also know javascript, but I don't think it is an easy hack... if we want it to work with IE4 and with Android 2.2 and with Blackberry and so on. I am happy to lend a hand at WP:VPT if you want to try and get click-the-row-identifier-to-auto-sort-the-columns javascript into mediawiki, but I don't think we will succeed. ))

Are you sure that ALL the readership can "see every candidate" in those gargantuan excessive-whitespace one-pic-per-cell v-tables? Or even option#H sortable h-table? Even readers with a 4" 320x240 smartphone screen? :-) See the "overall preference #5" multi-bangvote section. I personally find even the *sortable* wikipedia tables useless for serious research, despite my large-screen-PC; I always cut-n-paste from them into Excel. My main goal is to make the tables sortable (assuming we switch away from dead-simple-to-edit-and-parse bulleted-list-style), not for myself, but for people who cannot paste into a spreadsheet, due to tech-limitations or hassle-factor or whatever.

p.s. Why do you think v-table (and lists for that matter), do NOT suffer from default-order bias, at least as much as h-tables? With an h-table that is sortable, the readership can re-sort with one click; lists have a PERMANENT bias built into their layout, as do unsortable v-tables, that I can tell. But as you say, even the sortable table has a *preliminary* bias, since a default ordering is required. I see sortable-h-table as the least-biased-option, though. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 19:30, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I view v-tables as less bias than h-tables because you can see all the potential candidates quicker with a v-table. For example, on option H, it takes 22 mouse wheel rolls to view the entire chart. I find this as a major problem, one that is much larger than ease of editing because it goes against WP:NPOV. By comparison, option F requires 2 rolls to view everybody. (Roll comparisons were done starting at the header for each section). That is why I view h-tables are far more bias than v-tables. I was actually thinking of a random sort script for the candidates in the v-table. In that way, reloading the page would give you a different order which would eliminate bias completely. I am not sure how that would work with system resources but it is definitively doable if the information is placed in a multidimensional array. My original point of this section was not to get into a v-table vs. h-table debate. My original purpose was to have a list vs. table debate. --Stabila711 (talk) 19:52, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah... your problem is not with h-tables, your problem is with option#H in particular, and with excessive-whitespace in general (you are pro-compactness... like myself). Contrast option#G, which is an h-table, and option#E, also an h-table, versus option#F. (However, be aware that option#E uses the smallest imagesizes; imagesizes are also why option#F 'seems' more compact than option#C but really isn't any more compact, since tweaked imagesizes would make opt#C almost exactly as compact as option#F.) Those opt#G and opt#E were ones I specifically designed to be both sortable, and really compact. User:Spartan7W, can you please test option#A through option#H on your iPhone6, and give us some idea of what sort of screen-real-estate they each require? Preferably with a ruler measuring inches-of-screen-width.

As for the randomize-sort-order-on-every-page-load concept, that is not a horrible idea... but that will not eliminate bias, it will merely make the bias randomly-selected. Wikipedia has better options; usually, with politicians, we either sort alphabetically (during the primaries), or sometimes we do as User:Etamni suggested and periodically rotate our sort-criteria (alphabetical by last name in September + alphabetical by 2nd letter of lastname in October + et cetera); after the primaries we usually sort with hindsight, based on winner-goes-on-top-POV-bias. (As an aside, I count 23 headshots that look like NPOV-failures on that last wikilink, including well over half of the top-ten-names.)

p.s. I do realize that you were trying to have a nice simple list-vs-table discussion, and that I have derailed it, as too simple. (Cf, when Spartan7W was trying to have an opt#B vs opt#C bangvote, similar case.) I don't want to have a list-vs-table discussion, because I see the main advantage of tables as sortability. I am adamantly opposed to oversized unsortable tables, weakly support wiki-traditional compact simple lists, and strongly in favor of compact sortable tables. That is why I complained that we are not ready to achieve list-vs-table consensus, even though User:William S. Saturn has indicated preliminary support for the switchover to some kind of table, should consensus demand. I don't want consensus on list-vs-table, because the specific kind of table we pick, really really matters. If you want to have a discussion about list-vs-sortable-table, then that is a consensus I'd be happy to pursue, deferring the question of sortable-vs-unsortable to a later date. (Or vice versa.) But I don't want us to get painted into a false consensus that "tables are always better"; they are not, they are harder to edit. Tables *can* add features like sorting, but only certain types. Tables *can* be more compact than list+gallery, but again, only certain types. Make sense? 75.108.94.227 (talk) 20:35, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This table should not be sortable, ones on party candidates' pages should be. Here, there is a lot of information, and it should be fixed. Plus, there isn't much to sort. I think that as candidates drop out, they shouldn't be removed, but rather faded out, as you can see on my sandbox. Additionally, I prefer that all images be the same dimension, so a standard size (130px for instance) can be used for all images, and it appears uniform, as opposed to having to set each picture individually. I have shown this in Option C (square. Spartan7W § 22:07, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree about uniform-imgagefile-dimensions (and uniform aspect ratio for square-pics... circle-pics achieve uniform aspect ratio automatically). Prefer ~~75px to the 130px you suggest, for compactness. Agree about "fading" but suggest instead we use a background-color (maybe "light silver" e.g. html #DODODO say) and optionally convert the pics to b&w. Don't want the "fading" technique to make the textual-info hard to read, otherwise, what is the point of leaving dropouts in the table?

I don't understand your stance on sorting, please clarify... you want sortable tables here, but not over here? What is the reasoning behind that stance? We have roughly similar amounts of info, both places. We have the same candidate-counts, both places. Why make one sortable, and settle for the other not being sortable? Genuinely curious to hear the distinction you see; they look like the same things, to me. Are you arguing for an expansion of the table-contents on one of the pages or the other, which has yet to occur? 75.108.94.227 (talk) 23:48, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Look at both options C and F, the two main contenders. In each, the sorting of a table is essentially useless, as there are multiple rows stacked upon each other. Because alphabetization occurs left-right and continues such on each row, sorting is pointless. You can't sort 'campaign', images, references, or offices with efficiency Spartan7W § 02:21, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that opt#C cannot be sorted -- with present wiki-technology -- that is why I'm against opt#C_squared. :-) The *reason* they cannot be sorted, is *because* of the layout-choices made, namely, to use "multiple rows stacked upon each other" for each candidate. Look at opt#E_sortingTurnedOff,[6] without sorting being enabled. It makes the layout-choice, to have each candidate be "multiple columns laid end to end" (or more simply opt#C is a v-table with one-cand-per-col whereas opt#E is an h-table with one-cand-per-row).

Both opt#C_squared and opt#E_sortingTurnedOff have the candidates ordered alphabetically by last name, by default. And because sorting is currently disabled for opt#E_sortingTurnedOff, the reader is stuck with that alpha-ordering. Obviously, list-style opt#B, same deal, ordering is alphabetical-by-last-name, reader cannot click-to-sort. But, because opt#E is a table, and more specifically an h-table, we can enable sorting if we like: see opt#E_sortable.[7] Because of javascript limits, we cannot do the same for opt#C nor opt#F; they chose v-table layout-style, which "cripples" their ability to be sortable (100% because our wiki-technology is crippled, in that respect ... not because the v-table choice itself is inherently any "better" than h-table choice of layout... it is an artifact of our jscript code, that h-tables are sortable with minimal hassle, and v-tables are unsortable without herculean effort of first upgrading mediawiki itself).

why sorting helps: shows candidates out of office longest, shows sitting guvs&sens, hints we should NOT have campaign-logos in our comparison-table, permits adding sotable DOB/YrsInOfc/birthplace/etc columns later...

Sorting seems pretty-obviously-an-improvement, between opt#E_sortingTurnedOff,[8] versus opt#E_sortable.[9] With one click, I can see who has been "out of office" the longest: Gilmore/Fiorina/Pataki. (That is useful info: all three of those candidates, were kept off the FOX primetime stage... because they have poor nationwide name recognition! which is explained to the reader via opt#E_sortable, which shows that, quite simply, they've all been out of nationwide circulation for roughly a decade, each.) I can also see who is a sitting governor, one additional click, using opt#E_sortable: Christie/Kasich/Walker. Again, useful: all of those are in the top ten, by national polling, as behooves sitting governors. Of the four sitting senators (no additional clicks required), three of the four are top-ten-natl-polling presidential candidates.

The real boon of sortable layouts, is that we can add additional sortable-columns, beyond what we have not. Add DOB, and you can sort by age (Rubio/Cruz/Jindal are youngest... Rubio is practically using "I am young" as his campaign-slogan... all born in the 1970s. Pataki/Trump/Gilmore are the oldest, all born in the 1940s; the two oldest politicians are running on their long experience as politicians, and of course Trump is running on his equally long experience as never-was-and-never-gonna-be-a-politician.) Anyways, I hope you agree that sorting is NOT useless and pointless. If you will convert opt#C to a one-cand-per-row design (which is called "option H" at the moment but that opt#H does not have all your specific layout tweaks), then it will magically become sortable. As for your assertion that offices (alpha by job-title), images (alpha by name), and refs (numeric by ref-count) are unsortable, those assertions are just incorrect. We certainly can sort all of those, and opt#E sortable already permits sort-by-job-title, which as pointed out above, is useful to the readership (sitting guvs and sitting sens make up over half of the top-ten-candidates right now).

You are correct that campaign-logos cannot be sorted: which is one of the reasons why campaign-logos just flat do not belong in a comparison table. The readership is not picking their fave prez, based on the look of the logo. Well... sigh... I hope they are not picking thataway. Campaign-logos belong in the campaign-article, and nowhere else, in my opinion. Also, as User:William S. Saturn has pointed out, some of the campaign-logos are trademarked, and cannot be copied with the same freedom as libre-headshots: you have to write and submit an explict fair-use-rationale for *every time* you want to use a trademarked imagefile. Ditch the campaign-logos from the subpage, is my conclusion; they are non-sortable, and some of them are CCBYSA-libre-reuse-inhibiting.

If you want to see what opt#C and/or opt#F look like, when sortable, simply perform a pivot table operation on them, and convert them from one-cand-per-col, to instead be one-cand-per-row. That makes then h-tables, and those are sortable, simply by adding the "sortable" keyword right at the top. V-tables are not currently sortable, because there is not javascript that supports "v_sortable" on the mediawiki servers. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 13:00, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't understand what actually requires sorting. Perhaps their name? In that case why not just make the list default alphabetical? All the other information you want to add to this table is extraneous in my opinion. A candidate's DOB should not be included in this table. If a user wants to know that they can go to the individuals page. The information we have now is limited to only a few tidbits and I strongly feel it should remain that way. In the current list form we have, name, rank, home state, photo, and campaign link. You can't sort by photo or campaign link so that leaves name, rank, and home state. Home state is pointless information in my opinion and I wouldn't miss it if it was gone and I certainly don't care if the candidate from Rhode Island happens to be higher in the list than the one from Vermont. Rank is nice but I don't need to sort by it. Especially in this election were we have serious contenders who have never held a political rank. The only true "sortable" bit of information is their name and if it is really that much of a hangup just make the table alphabetic by default. I really think sortability is an extra that doesn't do a whole lot in this instance. --Stabila711 (talk) 14:16, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is true the sorting is not required, User:Stabila711. We can always force the readership to compile their own dataset, and do their own comparison manually (in their head or in a spreadsheet them make themselves). We do that now, with bulleted-list layout, right? I've had to do that for years; and even if we get a sortable comparison-table, I'll still have to do it. (My personal spreadsheet has like 99 columns per candidate. :-) That said, even a little bit of sorting does improve the encyclopedia.

Sorting by rank is helpful: it tells you who is a non-politician, and who is a sitting politician, both of which are vital in 2016 (i.e. directly correlated with polling: ALL THREE outsiders are doing shockingly well, and that is no coincidence, the voters are tired of politicians, and tend to tar them all with the same broad brush).
Sorting by last-year-in-office is helpful: ALL THREE of the longest-out-of-office candidates are doing poorly, and 80% of the currently-sittingly-senators-and-governors are doing well in the polls. (Also helpful would be a column with total-years-in-politics., and maybe a column of total-years-in-the-private-sector.)
DOB (or YOB) really does matter, historically/statistically; Republicans have never-with-the-exception-of-runner-up-in-1976-Reagan successfully nominated somebody as old as Pataki/Trump/Gilmore, and never in recent memory even nominated somebody as young as Cruz/Rubio/Jindal. We don't have that factoid in the bulleted-list right now, because bulleted-lists are not sortable. Adding DOB only makes sense, if we first have a sortable h-table as the layout.
Fundraising really does matter. With a sortable table, we could add millions-raised-to-date. Without sorting, though, the readership would have to manually eyeball which candidates had enough millions to be viable. Why make them manually eyeball, if we can make the table sortable?
Endorsements from guvs/sens/usreps REALLY matter, especially early-in-the-cycle ones. The #1 predictor of succcess in the primaries, in fact. We can add endorsement-count-columns to a candidate comparison table, but again, these added columns are only really going to help the readership understand what is happening, if the table is an h-table with click-to-sort.
Polling, especially swing-state-head-to-head polls (differential relative to other nomination-contenders), but also nationwide polls (which determine debate-invites this cycle), really matter... but without click-to-sort, are far less useful to the readership.

Anyways, my goal is straightforward: I want to see the sortable h-table (simply because it is the only kind of sortable wiki-tech we have at the moment), because I believe that the h-table can be incrementally expanded with additional columns (fundMillions / endorseCount / avgNatlPolls / avgSwingPollDiffs / age / lastInOfc / etc) which will hold vast explanatory power. If you disbelieve me about the explanatory power, I can provide the WP:SOURCES that back up the importance of those sortable-data-columns. However, I do understand that this goal (making the comparison table give the readership increased insight into which candidates are doing well and why), is not the only goal. Spartan7W is primarily proposing this RfC, to improve the aesthetic beauty of mainspace: to make wikipedia articles look better, and be more pleasing to read. I fully support that goal. William S. Saturn is primarily concerned with keeping things low-hassle for future editors, and high-ease-of-readability for the readership; I also fully support *that* goal.

So in my mind, this RfC is about striking a big-picture-balance between those three big-picture goals: functionality (like sorting && extra data-columns), aesthetics (like a cleaer look && more pleasing pics), and access (ease of edit && compat w/ tablets). If the only goal was aesthetics, then v-tables would be fine, but we have to balance our other goals with making things look as good as possible. I'm not comfy compromising future functionality and future ease/access/compat just for looks. I want us to look as good as we can, whilst also being as functional and easy-to-edit as we can. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 15:18, 19 August 2015 (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.