This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Politics and Government This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance). California This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California 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.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Law This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

I am removing the red links from names that are simply not Notable. This I do after checking (1) the L.A. Publlic Library reference files, (2) California Digital Newspaper Collection, (3) the L.A. Times files (if after 1881). Normally, if the subject has not had a printed obituary, then he or she is simply not Notable. Anyway, that's how I've been doing it. GeorgeLouis (talk) 11:00, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering why you changed the alphabetical template at the bottom of the above page to chronological and why you omitted the given names of the candidates? The template is plainly labeled "alphabetical," and the reader has no idea who these people are without the given names. I have changed it back. Thanks in advance for responding. GeorgeLouis (talk) 5:03 am, Today (UTC−8)

You probably shouldn't have done that. At present, the template bucks the trend of how similar templates in the category are formatted. Templates for political office nearly always follow the format I have them in, with officeholders listed chronologically. Virtually ALL templates only list people by their last names, except in cases where there are two people with the same last name. Compare Template:Attorneys General of California. The purpose of both that template and of this one is to provide easy access between officeholders, not to provide a comprehensive list. pbp 6:16 am, Today (UTC−8)

Well, I certainly disagree. Kindly point out where there is WP:Consensus for this list of truncated names. Thank you. GeorgeLouis (talk) 5:33 pm, Today (UTC−8)

Dude, just look at how other templates for holders of political officer are organized. Look at how Template:Attorneys General of California is organized, and what pages it is on. Look at how Attorney General of California is written. Also, you don't seem to understand why I edited Attorneys General of California in the manner I did. I made the table sortable, which means you can click something and it changes the way the table is organized from chronological to alphabetical. If what I'm doing still doesn't make any sense to you, feel free to discuss my edits on a community noticeboard. pbp 6:14 pm, Today (UTC−8)

Is there consensus for the changes that User:Purplebackpack99 has recently made to this article, beginning with these differences (two separate edits): [1]? 04:34, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

The list should be in chronological order. I don't know where there's a specific policy, but I don't think I've ever seen a list of officeholders that's not in chronological order. I think it's reasonable to have the list sortable by name (last name), but the default view should be chronological.

I'm a bit confused by the above discussion because you keep talking about "template". Are you talking about this article? Or are you talking about Template:LosAngelesCityAttorneys? If you're talking about the template (which is what I presume), the discussion should be on the template's talk page. The relevant guidance is WP:NAVBOX and Wikipedia:Navigation templates. In the latter, I think the following is something to consider:

"The goal is not to cram as many related articles as possible into one space. Ask yourself, does this help the reader in reading up on related topics? Take any two articles in the template. Would a reader really want to go from A to B?"

Would someone reading one of the articles in the template really want to go to another city attorney's article? I am indifferent, but feel that the list on this article and a category should suffice and that the navbox is not really necessary. But again, I don't have strong feelings about that. The navbox should probably have more information than just the last name to be of much use. At a minimum, I think the years the person served should definitely be included, so the template would look like:

Hayes (1850-51)  · Dryden (1851-52)  · etc...

Regarding whether or not the first name should be included, it should be a matter of how well the navbox appears (with the inclusion of the years). If it's too cluttered, then omit the first name. There's no guidance that says whether or not the first name should be included, but I think the ease of navigating by readers should be the primary concern. AHeneen (talk) 05:44, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, AHeneen. The problem is that the other editor has made really significant changes not only to this article, but also to the template itself. In the template the editor has removed the given names on the theory that readers would know who the various city attorneys are without them. In the article he or she has reworked the list so that the list of names can be changed from alpha to historical, and vice versa. But I would like to restate my original question; perhaps it was confusing as originally set forth. I value your third opinion. The question is not "What should be done about this article?" but it is "Has there previously been a consensus about making the changes to the article as it had existed on 2 September 2014, [here]? The aforementioned user, Purplebackpack99, seems to indicate that there is such a consensus, somewhere. I asked him to point it out to me, but he has not done so. If there were a true consensus made somewhere, then I would head over to that page to look at it and perhaps contest it. It seems to me now that the aforementioned user is just using Wikipedia:I just don't like it as a reason for making his or her changes. I simply want to know where the consensus is and where I can go to look at it. I hope this helps you understand my predicament: I don't want to hash out a WP:Guideline here if there is some other place it has already been discussed. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 13:25, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@GeorgeLouis:, my name is Purplebackpack89. @AHeneen:, I don't think GeorgeLouis has done a particularly good job of describing my edits. They aren't "really significant", they're mostly just formatting edits. The template in question is Template:LosAngelesCityAttorneys. It was created by George Louis, apparently for the purpose of providing an alphabetical list of City Attorneys, and it was originally only transcluded on this page. Seven months ago, I edited the template, putting it in chronological order and by last name only to make it consistent with other templates such as California Attorney General. I also transcluded it to as many articles as I could. Yesterday, GeorgeLouis began edit-warring with me about the template. I can't point to the specific discussion on this page or on any other page where there is a consensus for chronological order, but it is clear to me that it is established practice for the template to be formatted in the manner which I formatted it. However, as AHeneen noted, it does appear that NAVBOX seems to favor lists like these being presented chronologically. I don't know where the IDONTLIKEIT claim is coming from; I've explained to GeorgeLouis that my edits were motivated by a desire for consistency with other templates multiple times. I have yet to hear an explanation for GeorgeLouis why an alphabetical list is desirable or even necessary. As for the edits I made on LA City Attorney, what I did was convert the table from a non-sortable list to a sortable one. That means you could sort the LA City Attorneys list alphabetically if you wanted. I then moved the navbox from the middle of the article to the bottom where it belongs. pbp 14:39, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, there is no consensus for the order of articles in a navbox. However, that doesn't mean that the order can't be changed to an appropriate order (ie. Purplebackpack89 changes weren't inappropriate). While I am unaware of any guidelines, the general consensus (as based on the order in most articles/templates) is that office-/position-holders are listed in chronological order. The change of the list in the article from non-sortable to sortable is appropriate and it should be listed in chronological order based on the format used by other articles (making it sortable by other values, eg. last name, is fine if the default is chronological). Likewise, the layout of the template should be chronological, based on other articles. I gave the suggestion above that the dates of their terms should be included in the template for ease of navigability. After that, then the first names can be included as long as it doesn't make the template too cluttered. AHeneen (talk) 19:20, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Two charts: My concern is that this change is trying to do ‘’too much’’ with one table, and there is no reason to do so. There is nothing intrinsically good about combining a lot of information in one table. I also see a problem because there is nothing to indicate how to rearrange the columns. Some of us might be used to clicking on the triangle at the top of the page, but I am not, and neither are many others. I wouldn’t even THINK of clicking the little triangles, having no idea what they do.

What’s more, when you click on the triangle with “Name,” the list does not shift to an ABC list: It shifts to a ZYX list. And why should we ask our readers to go to all that trouble when the page was perfectly good before, with two lists, one showing names alphabetically and the other names chronologically. I do appreciate the editor who put his time into the new table; nevertheless another editor (me) also put his time into designing the older tables, and one editor does not have preference over the other. We are equal editors. Since there is really no reason to change this page (the two extant charts providing all the information needed in a very clear way), I am reverting to the two-chart format on the basis that changes should NOT be made just because I don’t like it. This is friendly, solid Wikipedia editing practice: If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Wikily yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:43, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may not be familiar with sortable lists, but they are common throughout WP. There's no need to have two lists when one table can do the job. The function can be determined by hovering the mouse over the arrows. The table should be sortable by both surname and date of term. As I've said before, the default view should be chronological (earliest to most recent). The default action for the surname should be ABC, which is what I found when clicking on the name column of the previous version (on a related note: you should have waited to resolve this discussion before reverting to the previous version). Refer to Help:Sorting to fix any issues (for example Charles E. Carr appeared at the top when sorting by name and Charles H. Larrabee appeared at the bottom if you click to sort by date descending).

There are two reasons to use the sortable table. One is that WP:WHENTABLE "The sortability of multiple columns in a table is a powerful tool that helps the reader to understand relationships and find patterns in large lists...Often a list is best left as a list. Before reformatting a list into table form, consider whether the information will be more clearly conveyed by virtue of having rows and columns. If so, then a table is probably a good choice. If there is no obvious benefit to having rows and columns, then a table is probably not the best choice." In other words, the list of attorneys should be presented as a list and not in a table unless there's value to using the table (which there is when making it sortable). One point I came across and is a good issue to mention is that "if (list) items have specific dates a chronological format is sometimes preferable", per MOS:LIST#Organization. Furthermore, navboxes are designed to be at the bottom of an article after the appendices (see also, refs, external links), not in a content section (see Wikipedia:Navigation templates).

Another point which I came across, and which would have been better to point out earlier in this discussion, is that "Alphabetical ordering does not provide any additional value to a category containing the same article links." (from WP:NAVBOX; there's already Category:Los Angeles City Attorneys) That reinforces what I said earlier about including the dates in the template and what I just said about not needing a second listing of attorneys by surname. So the article should contain either a listing by chronological order (most appropriate for an officeholder) or a sortable table, but it should not contain a chronological table plus an alphabetical listing using the navbox. (Note: I may not be back for a couple days.) AHeneen (talk) 07:16, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@GeorgeLouis:, I wish you'd stop throwing around the claim that I'm doing this just because "I don't like it". I'm doing it because it's the proper way to format an article and a template. AHeneen has provided plenty of guidelines that favor my way of doing things. You cite ABDF, but the fact remains that the article was broken. The only permissible way to have the same information twice is with a list/table in the body of an article and a navbox at the bottom. If you're getting ZYX list when you click a column, click it again and it will go to ABC. Also, you reverting my changes even after another editor agreed with them was a bad idea. pbp 13:30, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On thinking about the controversy, basically I have no particular reason to insist on two tables in the face of somebody else opposing them, but I have an objection to this particular table. Can we try to make it better? I am not very familiar with constructing tables, so will somebody else please handle my requests? (1) Move Carr's name down to alphabetical order. (2) Make the Name list so that it cannot be reversed – in other words, remove the arrows (there is no reason for allowing a reader to accidentally sort by ZYX, as I did). Place a note within the chart or just above it stating "Click on the small arrow to sort by date." If we can do this, I believe we are on the road to WP:Consensus. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 14:22, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed Carr's name. pbp 15:59, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As for request 2, I can't do that per se. A sortable table has to use the little arrows, and if you click it one too many or too few times, it ends up as ZYX. This is because in tables with numbers instead of words, people want to sort them both up and down. I've never seen a table predicated with a sortable use explanation, though one could hypothetically be created. pbp 21:22, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the second request, a sortable table is meant to be able to be sortable in both directions. I don't know if it's even possible to remove the arrows. Even if it were, the format is used throughout wikipedia, so it would not be appropriate to have a table that is different from others. AHeneen (talk) 19:46, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Should the alphabetical list of past Los Angeles city attorneys be made non-sortable in the alphabetical column but remain sortable in the chronological column? Notes: I am maintaining the previous discussion below so that the arguments don't have to be repeated. I have changed my username from User:GeorgeLouis to the following: BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 18:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Despite my feeling that two tables (each serving a different purpose) are the best way to handle this page, I have agreed in the spirit of consensus to accept a single table, but the one proposed is not user-friendly and attempts to do too much in one place — that is; it provides for an alphabetical listing in the first column and also for a chronological listing in the second. As to necessity of sorting the first column, certainly a Z-Y-X sorting order is never required. As to the second column, it may or may not be advantageous for the names to be listed in reverse chronological order, but I don't see why the reader cannot simply scroll to the end of the column to see the latest name (if the column were listed chronologically to begin with). That is why I believe two separate tables are needed — a columnar table for the chronology and a horizontal table for the alphabet – one that can instantly be scanned in a glance. As AHeneen said above, "the ease of navigating by readers should be the primary concern." This proposed combined table, in my opinion, isn't up to the task. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:11, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For the two-chart version of this page, just click here. GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:18, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tables are sortable both ways, because some users do find it useful to sort in reverse chronological/alphabetical order. I don't want to sound too rude, but the article is a stub...there are more important things to be done to the article than to carry on about the table. The article one reference (I changed into a note...the reference at the end of the note needs to use a separate Ref template) for one of the people in the list. Can references be added to the article (!?!?) and maybe add some actual content about the LA city attorney (eg. an infobox, administrative structure of the office, address/office locations, when the elections are held, etc.)? As explained above, the sortable table is a proper way to format this list; there is no harm in it being sortable both ways. If you feel the visual appearance of the arrows on table is problematic or that tables should only be sorted one way, I suggest you start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Tables (or maybe Help talk:Sorting). AHeneen (talk) 20:20, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for those two links, AHemeen; they were interesting, but I did not find them very helpful in this conversationl: They didn’t seem to have much to say about the conflation of information that, to my mind, would be better served by two separate tables as I mentioned above. I’d still like to achieve WP:consensus, so I’ve asked for help at the Help Desk. As for your other suggestions, I can appreciate your interest in making the article better, but I feel this section should concentrate on the table controversy right now. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I support the sortable table as it is. Sortable tables can always be sorted in both directions. This cannot be switched off. Anyway, it sorts in increasing order on the first click so I see no harm in an additional option to revert the order with a second click. Sortable tables are used in a lot of articles and many readers will already know exactly how they work. I often sort numbers and dates in both directions as a reader. Less often for alphabetical but it happens on long tables which don't fit on my screen, mainly when I want to find a specific entry I know will be near the end. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:44, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am familiar with tables which can be sorted either way on every column. Devising a special kind of table in which some of the sort facilities have been disabled, even if possible, would appear to serve no purpose. Maproom (talk) 08:39, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I found the answer and inserted a revised table, which I hope will be satisfactory. I think it answers the objections I raised above, and I hope there is no objection to this solution. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:24, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@GeorgeLouis: The two links are places you can start a discussion if you don't like the sortable table. They aren't there for you to simply read. There's also a clear consensus to have the table sortable both chronologically and alphabetically (three editors in support, only you are opposed). The article is still a stub. AHeneen (talk) 05:21, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will be leaving this discussion for a week or so. GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:10, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Place new discussion below: 18:59, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Following is the sortable table which I prefer, with the first column made non-sortable:

— BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 19:04, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you prefer that to a fully sortable table? Maproom (talk) 23:43, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the question, Maproom. I believe you might have misunderstood the problem. I myself actually prefer to have two non-sortable tables, like the ones from previous years, as you see here. For quite a while there was a (nonsortable) chronological table at the top of the page and a (nonsortable) alphabetical table at the bottom – where you had to click on the Show tab to see it. But on 7 March this year another editor proposed a single table with both columns sortable. You can see it here. After a bit of editors' reverting and re-reverting, in the spirit of compromise I acquiesced to the single-table idea, and I submitted the one that I posted just above (with the first column nonsortable). This was reverted and a complaint was entered against me for edit-warring, so I took a voluntary leave of eight days from the dispute to let things quiet down. Now I am asking that the WP:Community declare its preference one way or another for a table with a nonsortable alphabetical column and a sortable chronological column. It seems to me there should be no reason for us to provide a link that would turn the alphabet upside down. What do you think? BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 15:02, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Make both columns sortable in both directions (as they automatically are with the sort feature). The latest suggestion is the most pointless sort variation I have seen: A single sortable column in a table which is already sorted by that column. I know that clicking twice will revert the order but the whole point of sortable tables is that you can choose which property to sort by. Column headings should not have sort instructions. We have huge numbers of sortable tables and most readers will know how they work. Instructions in the table are distracting when you read the table. If the sorting ability is important in a specific table, for example a large table with several sortable columns many readers probably want to use if they notice the feature, then there may be instructions above the table. But sorting is of minor importance here and shouldn't be mentioned. The tooltip when you hover over the heading is sufficient. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:44, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that a single table is better than two tables, both for the reader and for those who maintain the page. Given that there is to be a single table, I might have reasons for sorting it in chronological order, in reverse chronological order, and in alphabetical order (because I just sorted it chronologically, and I now want it alphabetical again). I can't imagine why anyone would want to sort it in reverse alphabetical order; but I can't prove that no-one could have such a reason, and anyway I can see no harm in giving the option. Wikipedia is about providing readers with information – why put difficulties in their way when they try to access it? Maproom (talk) 16:13, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• rfc-bot invitee Unless you have an absolute reason for making a particular field unsortable (eg, a field that does not have comparable values, like "notes") then it should always be sortable. People will want to see this list in alphabetical and chronological orders. They have every right to switch between the two to their hearts' content. As such, this table absolutely should be sortable, and there is no reason why it should be split into separate lists. The most meaningful order is chronological, and hence is should be chronological by default. VanIsaac_WS^cont 00:12, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I appreciate the remarks of the recent unaffiliated editors, who make some salient points very politely, but I don't believe that all visitors know what the little triangles mean. I certainly didn't. We in Wikipedia have to realize that not everybody has a vast amount of experience with navigating around Internet pages: Maybe it is a generational thing. We should really make navigation as simple as possible and perhaps give too many instructions rather than too few or none. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 17:19, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion on the talk page of a minor article isn't the place to complain about how tables are implemented site-wide...you should start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Tables. AHeneen (talk) 22:02, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to AHeneen for that suggestion. I had asked for such a link when this topic first started out, but I received no answer, and I did receive some unwelcome abuse. Oh, well. Yes, I will go over there are poke around. Thank you. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 21:52, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Both should be sortable - summoned by bot. I don't know why anyone would care to sort this particular list by last name, but as long as it's an option, it shouldn't matter. If you don't want to sort the list, then you don't have to. It doesn't affect anything else on the page. —Мандичка^YO 😜 00:12, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Both columns should be sortable. I feel compelled to disclose that the RfC bot brought me here as well. As others have stated, it's improbable that the addition of a single small visual element would serve to confuse users. APerson (talk!) 04:39, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Removing my request. Thanks for all the comments. I certainly don't agree, but I will concede. G'day to all! BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 21:52, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).