This template is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
I have restructured and reordered the template [1]. No links were deleted (except for double ones); there are 126 outgoing links. Edits:
Minor: use "U.S." abbrev where not official; make Biuku and Eroni one link as their page is (Naval period); the 'Kennedy Rocking' name; formats,
Group order: all political life put in top, presidency first on purpose; personal life below.
Presidency group: was a long list of ~40 links. Made subgroups: Office/Domestic/Foreign/White House. I may have erred in subtleties, but I think such a subdivision this gives more overview for our readers. -DePiep (talk) 12:49, 23 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Legacy and Memorials should be moved to after death. Kierzek (talk) 12:53, 23 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just saw this, and had made those two moves already. Wikipedia minds think alike. Randy Kryn 13:08 23 October, 2014 (UTC)
Now the subtopic title "Presidential office" is gone (I liked it myself ;-) ), but now the opening links are without leader or anchor point. Also, the judicial actions (I had to put them somewhere) are a out of place somehow. Any other options? -DePiep (talk) 13:48, 23 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I thought opening up the top one with obvious links to the overall section name 'Presidency' would work. Reason I did this was because of a personal dislike for black listings in templates. See 'Template:Ghosts' for lots of black topic headers (Lincoln's ghost is on there, a fine ghost with a fine disposition). Judicial could go at the end of Domestic? And probably the Foreign Policy section and Domestic sections should be in chronological order (have thought of doing this in the past but haven't). I'll put another link for "timeline" in that first area, give them two cracks at it (not everyone, me included for awhile, knows to click on section headers). I love the 'Happy Birthday Mr. President' link, but it didn't go with 'White House', so moved it to 'Personal life' section. Randy Kryn 14:08 23 October, 2014 (UTC)
Well, ((Ghosts)) has 6 bold words for 30 links; this was 4 bold words (on newline) fo 40 links.
Yesterday I was surprised (not helped) that the !first two links lead to the same (presidency + timeline). Confusion for a reader. After all, two links suggest two different articles. Maybe unlink the Presidency then, link adds nothing (as you say). I'll see where it goes. -DePiep (talk) 15:19, 23 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes it might be a very good idea to move Marilyn from "white house" to "private life". I'll have to check other presidents for this. btw, did you ever hear how she sang it? -DePiep (talk) 15:23, 23 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, Marilyn is squeezed in the right spot. Also for a good guideline see how LBJ's template is organized. Kierzek (talk) 15:43, 23 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
LBJ's looks good indeed. But too has that huge clunk of links in top. Over here, I found that naval group a bit hard to position. (into group 'life' maybe?). I won't edit, see what happens. -DePiep (talk) 17:26, 23 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Guess I personally don't mind double listings like the Timeline (some readers will find it on one click, some another) but that's just a personal preference. And Hey, Hey, LBJ(how many kids..)'s template is another I've been meaning to put into chronological order (have done that with most presidential templates except for a few). The Naval thing was floating on top of this template when I came upon it, and so just left it there after expanding it. It's a bit more than 'Life' and a bit less than 'Death' (although JFK almost died by drowning even after he swam to the Island - learned that from reading that Bill O'Reilly book now, lots of good data). And Marilyn, who had a knack for squeezing into a tight spot (and into her tight dress when she seductively serenaded JFK)...I've mentioned in the past that there should be a page for JFK's mistresses (O'Reilly's book has quite a few I've never heard of. Maybe a JFK Mistress Tree? lol). A handful of us are playing well in the fields of the Kennedy's (added the British Memorial to JFK, which is in a field), so Caroline should come around shortly with a plate of cookies. Randy Kryn 18:18 23 October, 2014 (UTC)
I would put "naval" under 'Life'. I am sure the LBJ template could use some tweaking as well; I just thought it was already in pretty good form. We already discussed on the JFK talkpage why there is no need for a "mistress page". As for O'Reilly's book I have read it as well and there are some things he gets wrong and other areas (mafia) he plays loose with the facts. To not take up space here, see my JFK book section - user page for ones which I believe to be better. Kierzek (talk) 18:37, 23 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No 'JFK Mistress Tree'? Oh well. I did move his Navy data into the 'Life' section, labeling it per the talk page. Thanks for linking your book list. And have put back the 'Presidential Office' opener.Randy Kryn 19:21 23 October, 2014 (UTC)
Its looking good; next you can give "the treatment" to LBJ's template. Speaking of LBJ, he was like MLK, Jr. and FDR, much better at discretion, as far as a "mistress tree". Kierzek (talk) 19:38, 23 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The 'Presidential office' sub-header does seem a good place for the Judicial appointments. I had moved those because of removing that title, but now I see what DePiep is getting at, that the office of the president has specific duties which would be included in that sub-header. I hadn't grasped the full logic of such a division, and it's a very good idea. I'll put it back the way DePiep had it, which once-again completes the interesting four section division DePiep came up with. The two links to the timeline, I've added it to the section head 'Presidency (timeline)' which might work, seem okay? Randy Kryn 3:07 24 October, 2014 (UTC)
An interesting Wikpedia JFK omission, there aren't pages for his 1961, 1962 or 1963 State of the Union addresses. I was pondering if they would be listed under 'Presidential office' or not, and then found (actually refound) they didn't exist. You'd think those would be three major speeches in JFK's presidency and legacy, but if they were rated as memorable someone would have likely put up a page. Has my curiosity up. Wikisource has them, I'll have to read them. Randy Kryn 3:30 24 October, 2014 (UTC)
New subtopics: above & below notes. Could we 1. put the three positions (pres, sen, rep) in different lines (using <br/>)? In my screen they make a strange line break. 2. Could we move the before/after (Eisenhower/LBJ) links in top too, near the president link? -DePiep (talk) 09:43, 25 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The before/after links are on every American presidential template, linking from the bottom. They act as the 'railway' line between these templates. Moving them to the top (above) section would seem unrelated (at least to me) to the individual's template. The top on my screen works fine, and looks good, so that's one on which I couldn't comment on about the code. Randy Kryn 9:59 25 October, 2014 (UTC)
OK re bottom. re top: With me, the top lines (3 positions) break within the third one. "(1947–1953)" is on a new line, a strange effect (wrongfooting my eyes). Give each one a nowrap tag? -DePiep (talk) 10:06, 25 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I hate it when that happens (tried to find a link for that line, failed). Seems reasonable, although much of Wikipedia's coding is outside my expertise. Randy Kryn 10:19 25 October, 2014 (UTC)
I'll edit that, and if you or someone else dislikes it just revert. See the editsummary. (((nowrap)) prevents occurring a newline aka line break, so keeps words together). -DePiep (talk) 16:06, 25 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merging the Family navbox into Brother navboxes
Split into separate topic -DePiep (talk) 09:14, 31 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I created ((this)) rough demo (this version), that shows how we could merge the Robert + Family navboxes. Those persons close to Bob get his navbox, and far-away family members like Patrick Kennedy (1823–1858), get the bare but still complete stand alone ((Kennedy family)) navbox. -DePiep (talk) 18:49, 24 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good, but I'd include the siblings, notable grandchildren, and grandparents of each brother on all the templates, and put them on the pages as well. Key family members of individuals include siblings and grandchildren, as well as the grandparents of these political icons, and the story told by those links traces, at a glance, the flow of individual genes. I can see what your getting at, yet I think the Family template is valuable while also keeping that main personal individual information on each template. Randy Kryn 22:00 24 October, 2014 (UTC)
Not important. It's a demo to support to Keep that template. -DePiep (talk) 22:04, 24 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think it may be kept now anyway, a clear consensus is far from reached to remove it. I'm usually surprised at how few people vote on those things anyway. There is a place for it, and in reality it's not taking up much room, just an extra line on the Kennedy pages. The brothers' templates, on the other hand, go on hundreds of articles not related to family, and provide the route to the other data either by themselves or in conjunction with a brother or two. Randy Kryn 23:03 24 October, 2014 (UTC)
I'll first see if it is kept. I wouldn't know what to do without it. I really don't know how the tree graph could be made into a navbox. Also I don't know about SNUGGUMS' recent opinions in these. I guess these could help in future cooperations. -DePiep (talk) 09:39, 25 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So it is kept. Randy Kryn, can you explain what you say here? I don't get about which navbox you say what. And when you want to use what. Note that, as the sandbox proposes, the Family template is there below for all three Big brothers, and it is always complete in itself (to be used as stand alone). -DePiep (talk) 09:11, 31 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good, glad it was kept after all of that. What I mean is that each of the brothers' templates goes on many pages where the "Kennedy family" template will not be present. So keeping a full immediate family listing on the brothers' templates provides those links to readers of those dozens (if not hundreds) of pages. With all of this going on, Wikipedia's readers can't complain that they can't find a specific Kennedy. Can't turn around without bumping into one of them. Randy Kryn 10:25 31 October, 2014 (UTC)
The proposal is, that that ((Kennedy family)) is present in each of the brothers' template, folded (as Teds sandbox has now). So in all those pages with JFK/Bob/Ted template, the extended family is one more click away (and their close family is in the top half). Next step: because the large family is always there with a brother's template, his close family (in top half of template) does not need to be that large. Grandparents of JFK in template Ted? (adding the other two of Big three brothers is all right with me; done in Ted's demo).
These are the numbers, template in articles. JFK: in 124 articles; Robert: in 76 articles; Ted: in 45 pages. Total for the 3 bros: in 194 pages (doubles removed in counting). Kennedy Family: in 62 articles; of which 22 combined with a brother and 40 have Family only. -DePiep (talk) 11:16, 31 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just for clarity, there are now 17 entries of family members on this JFK template. To me that seems about right and covers his immediate family well. RFK's would have more, because of the number of children he sired, but still would contain the principal family members (grandparents, parents, wife, children). Are you suggesting trimming those? Maybe I'm not clear on your proposal. The extended family, of course, are just one click away (if someone looking at JFK's template wants to see how many children Ted had there are now one or two routes to get there), yet immediate family seem relevant to the lives of each of the individual brothers. Randy Kryn 11:31 31 October, 2014 (UTC)
I find those 17 names a bit too much indeed, I can't get an overview (and then think of the incidental reader). First, we should structure that list by using newlines (Ted/sandbox has) -- whatever names we have in there. Then, yes, I want to cut out some. Grandparents: no. Parents: ? doubt. Siblings: the two other Big Brothers only (not Eunice etc.). Wife/wives: yes. Children: all own. In-laws: none at all. Grandchildren: no. All this principle for JFK, Robert, Ted alike.
Remember: Of course in the JFK-page we can expect them, but this template is on all presidency-related pages. Why would a reader of these pages want to click directly to in-laws, or grandchildren? Both as a "production" by JFK, as by family relations, grandchildren can be one more click away. -DePiep (talk) 12:10, 31 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On this one we go opposite ways. Most in-laws, I agree with that (although I would have kept Shriver and Lawford on the JFK template because of how they relate to his career and life), but prominent siblings, parents, grandparents and very prominent (or scarce, JFK only has one to list) grandchildren make up much of the story of where a person came from, became, and left the world. When I research someone I'm very interested in their entire life story, and much of that story is contained on the pages of their close family members and homes. JFK, for example, isn't JFK if not for his parents, and each of his siblings has an interesting story which interacts with the principals' story. And if a person has a template, say Bobby Kennedy's, then the same consideration goes no matter what their career choice or opportunity. But that's just me, and I know other templates have just one direct link (the smaller ones mainly, most good-size complete templates have the main family members listed). If JFK's grandson becomes a Senator or President (and I think he's got something like that in his future), then he'd be listed on the JFK template, so why not now? Anyway, more people should be along for this discussion (Caroline?), and it's interesting to look at all points of view about listings like this. Randy Kryn 12:28 31 October, 2014 (UTC)
Short & quick for now: I think along a guiding like: "what he produced/did/initiated himself, in. That what came towards him, out". Sure we can a dozen of contra-examples for his whole template, but without this guide we'd end up with scores of people & things who knew him. I try to sense the direction of association: from him=good, to him=bad. -DePiep (talk) 13:18, 31 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Certainly there should a "family cutoff" at some point for space reasons, notable reasons and reasonable navigation for readers, as well. I would put Shriver back in the JFK template as he was a close campaign advisor and first director of the Peace Corps and went on the work for LBJ later. I don't think grandchildren should be included; nothing notable, at this point in time. Kierzek (talk) 13:34, 31 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Created ((John F. Kennedy/sandbox)) to try things (like ((Ted's))). I did make the newlines per group, but I did not remove anyone. Go ahead. -DePiep (talk) 14:43, 31 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello. Grouping the family like that seems, on first glance, to expand the template with empty space until you realize what is being separated (generations), and even then the white space throws the section off. But experimentation is good. And I see you put the family navbox into the template itself (ah ha, so that's what the section header means). Wouldn't that throw off the "below" commons, wikiquote, etc. section? Good experiment though. JFK hasn't had this much attention since...well, no, he always has attention (and should have an "Iconic period" page). Randy Kryn 9:58 1 November, 2014 (UTC)
lol, you only saw this today? It's what I'm promoting for a week (in ((Ted's)), ((JFK's))). ;-). Remember, usually that large family box would be underneath the navbox anyway. And no, the bottom links (commons &tc) are there unaffected.
About whitespace: whitespace is our best friend in creating overview in a webpage. (And sorting these names alphabetically, as it was, is chaos to me). -DePiep (talk) 14:27, 1 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
About the abbreviation into "JFK" I introduced for certain entries. re "looks messy" Kierzek: I disagree, to me it is the opposite. Since it is a navbox, readers are helped by some overview (structural, formatting, ordering). As it happens to turn out, the links are the institute names, and the locations are unlinked. To my eye, that brings structure at a glance. (Just an idea: We could add subdivisions for inside/outside US).
I think the pres library should have the 'JFK' in the name, because there are more Pres Libraries (for example, I myself had to check whether there is one big one or a personal one). -DePiep (talk) 09:54, 26 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I did not say that at all. On 25 November, Randy Kryn stated in his edit summary, in part, "The template looks a bit messy with the new style..." What I was referring to is that I believe the full, proper names should be used where appropriate. That was my point. Kierzek (talk) 14:10, 26 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Changed the library back to the full official name. The use of 'JFK' in official names seems, to me, inaccurate, but I can see your point for brevity. But if the Presidential Library and Museum were listed as "JFK Presidential Library and Museum" many people would think it was the official name, so on this one at least the full name should be used, imnho. Randy Kryn 10:23 26 November, 2014 (UTC)
"many people would think it was the official name" is no reason. It is identifying, which is enough. It's a navbox; formal name(s) are one click away. I'll change it. -DePiep (talk) 10:33, 26 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Of course it's a reason, naming it 'JFK Presidential Library and Museum' seems misleading and dumbing-down the name of a very recognized institution (as is the name 'JFK Center for the Performing Arts'). Hopefully more people will weigh in on this. Randy Kryn 10:42 26 November, 2014 (UTC)
Per my reply above, I agree with Randy Kryn on this point; its misleading. Further, as an example, the full name is used on the Lyndon B. Johnson template. Kierzek (talk) 14:10, 26 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How about a fine compromise, one found in the annuals of consensus. The first item in the two sections, the presidential library and, in 'Memorials and namesakes', the Center for Performing Arts, we keep the entire name (these, along with the Kennedy Space Center and JFK's gravesite, seem to be his main legacy "places"). Then the eight other JFK items in the Memorials section we use the JFK initials (for the bridge, school, airport, etc.). Best of boat worlds? Randy Kryn 18:58 26 November, 2014 (UTC)
re Kierzek "its misleading": I don't see how (that would be very bad indeed!). It's a library named after him. What does the label say?: the "JFK library". Clear to me. The list it is in 'stuff named after JFK', plus the regularity of the other "JFK"s used, supports the suggestion strongly. Please approach this from the uninitiated Reader who is browsing the navbox (I am not saying this for article content). That reader is helped most by differentiating words like "presidential library" and "airport", plus the cities. Both per entry wording (link), and in the glance overview: the first look at the navbox without actually reading (our eye is extremely good at this, looking for patterns & search words!).
The LBJ example, to me at least, only illustrates that wp:othersuffexists (maybe that other one needs improvement). On the other hand, many many persons articles are wikilabeled (with the | pipe) into other names.
re Randy Kryn (lol with the both joke). From my "philosophy" in this (explained above: everything to help the reader). In this place, a JFK navbox's fifth subsection, there is no need to spell out the name again. Quite the opposite: it disturbs! the pattern. The reader knows these are JFK things. They do not expect anything else. The reader looks for distinctions like "airport" or "memorial"; and maybe for "Harvard" or "Washington". (Just a note: only since we used this JFK abbreviation, it became clear that that Wisconsin airport was unimportant. Doesn't this prove to ourselves that the right overview is created now?). So I reject this "let's meet halfway"-proposal for these reasons. -DePiep (talk) 09:58, 28 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You make good points, and the template does flow better (check out what it looked like before I stumbled across it on my way to Nixon's secret tape stash). Can the halfway at least include the full name of the Presidential Library and Museum, which has a 'weight' unlike any of the other listings? I think listing the Library as 'JFK Presidential Library and Museum' does imply to the reader that this important American and historical institution is named 'JFK' and not 'John F. Kennedy'. Thanks. Randy Kryn 12:55 28 November, 2014 (UTC)
DePiep, it is precisely "from the uninitiated Reader" point-of-view that I raise the points made above. In the sprint of this project of ours, I will agree to Kryn proposed "halfway" compromise on this; I do agree with him as to the "weight" argument and believe people should be made aware of and know the proper names of important matters. Kierzek (talk) 15:13, 28 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't see the "misleading" part. No problem with e,g, the current space center and ships naming. The perfect formal spelling is not a task for the navbox at all. In short: full names is not appropriate in this navbox situation. -DePiep (talk) 15:32, 28 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
.svg)
