Wikipedia

Talk:List of presidents of the United States/Archive 13

< Talk:List of presidents of the United States
Latest comment: 3 years ago by Drdpw in topic Minor error with Nixon
Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 → Archive 17

Requested move 27 July 2019

Latest comment: 4 years ago76 comments31 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: all pages moved as described in nomination. I closed one of the recent bulk requested moves discussions located at Talk:List_of_presidents_of_Sri_Lanka#Requested_move_12_July_2019 where I found a consensus for the re-titles and page moves, and recommended a local discussion occur for this title to determine if a consensus existed for the page move. After reviewing this discussion, I have determined such a consensus does exist, for similar reasons to the requested move I closed previously. Specifically, consensus can change, and per a long list of requested moves since the previous RM for this title was closed as no consensus in May 2018, the community has favoured re-titling articles in favour of the cited policies and guidelines in this discussion, most predominantly MOS:JOBTITLES. Those opposing the move have not given sufficient policy-based reasonings to overcome this established consensus and application of style guidelines. If those in opposition feel that this style guideline is incorrect or should be rewritten, a requested move discussion is not the place to suggest a change, the style guideline discussion page is a more appropriate venue. Note: It will take me some time to do the technical work behind all these moves, but it is currently in progress. (closed by non-admin page mover) Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 11:58, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

– Per Wikipedia's MOS:JOBTITLES: "Offices, titles, and positions such as president, king, emperor, grand duke, lord mayor, pope, bishop, abbot, chief financial officer, and executive director are common nouns and therefore should be in lower case when used generically. They are capitalized... when a formal title for a specific entity... is not plural."
This Wikipedia guideline reflects major style guides such as AP Stylebook and The Chicago Manual of Style, which explicitly state that "presidents" (plural) should always be lower case and that "president" (singular) should be upper case only when preceding a president's name.
See also the recently concluded multiple page move requests at Talk:List of presidents of the Czech Republic, Talk:List of presidents of Austria, Talk:List of chancellors of Germany, Talk:List of governors of New York, etc. Obi2canibe (talk) 18:00, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Note. Several redirects that resulted from an overlapping, recently closed RM at Talk:List of presidents of Costa Rica#Requested move 25 July 2019 have been removed from this request. Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there  03:49, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
@BarrelProof: I missed these as they weren't categorised under Category:Lists of national presidents. I guess it's too late to add them to this discussion. Perhaps they can be included in future discussions - there are many other lists that need correcting e.g. see Category:Lists of prime ministers by country.--Obi2canibe (talk) 19:15, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
No worries. If this proposal succeeds and they are not handled as part of it, I will be happy to file a separate RM for them after this discussion is closed. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:54, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Crossed out List of Presidents of the British Virgin Islands, since it is included in the other current RM at Talk:List of Presidents of Costa Rica. —BarrelProof (talk) 04:04, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Crossed out List of Federal Presidents of Austria, because it became a redirect on 8 May 2018. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:52, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong support: per MOS:JOBTITLES and other relevant style guides, "presidents" and "vice presidents" should be lowercase in these examples. No reason that the article title shouldn't reflect the correct capitalization. —Eyer (If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message to let me know.) 18:22, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose per the comments in the May, 2018, Requested Move at the List of Vice Presidents page. Is this a perennial topic? I'd commented on the poorly attended RM's that the nom lists that this page and the "List of Vice Presidents of the United States" page were the main articles for this quest to decapitalize historically capitalized titles and proper names. Please ping all of the participants of the May, 2018, RM on List of Vice Presidents of the United States talk page and the participants of those other lesser-attended RM's. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:31, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
    • May 2018 was a long time ago in the history of this issue. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:17, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
      • So was 1787, when the United States Constitution created the upper-cased title 'President of the United States of America'. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:38, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
        • Yes, and as I'm sure you know as you've read WP:JOBTITLE, we cap President of the United States of America when using it as a title. Not relevant here. Dicklyon (talk) 22:05, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
          • So you accept "President of the United States of America"?
What's the plural form of that? What's the descriptor for a list of them? By what grammatical quirk are they transformed to lowercase? "presidential" as an adjective, certainly – but why does pluralisation (as that's what the list refers to) have the same effect? Why not "List of presidents of the united states" if the capitalisation within a title is "washed away" by becoming a plural list? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:29, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Plurals aren't that complicated; United States is a proper name; "kings of England" is not; you can look at books to verify. But in the cases of presidents of the United States, it's harder to get useful stats, as the term appears more often in titles than in sentences (books titled "Presidents of the United States" and "The Presidents of the United States" and "Cookie Recipes of the Presidents of the United States" can't be easily disambiguated, since putting "the" in front makes a 6-gram, which is not supported). Dicklyon (talk) 00:29, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Did you read the question?
Do you accept "President of the United States of America"? This appears to be a proper name, thus capitalised, according to some arcana with the Constitution. As such, we would accept, "The 45th President of the United States of America is fond of golf." So why, when we pluralise this as part of the title for a list article, do you claim that some of the capitalisation is removed? Not "How many times can Google find examples?", but what is the grammatical basis for this?
Because I can't see one. I would have agreed with you that "List of presidents of Elbonia" is lowercase, because the role of the title there is only adjectival. But if "President of the United States of America" is robustly a proper name, as a compound phrase, then what's our basis for not treating it as one throughout? Andy Dingley (talk) 08:28, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
No, it is not robustly a proper name – it is a formal job and is capped when used as such. For "50th president of the United States", with or without "America", it's not. Have you looked at style and grammar guides on this issue? Or see this official book from the US government. Dicklyon (talk) 14:59, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
So you're saying that "president of the United States" is correct, and all else follows from that? Andy Dingley (talk) 20:20, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
No, I'm not saying it's quite that simple either. Stop playing dense. Dicklyon (talk) 20:42, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Our basis for decapitalizing "presidents" is basic English orthography, as laid out in all the major style books mentioned by the nominator and in Wikipedia's own guideline. The basis for capitalizing the word is the opinion, so far unsubstantiated, of some Wikipedia editors. And if we have to choose between reputable authorities on grammar and orthography on one hand and anonymous Wikipedia editors on the other, we should certainly go with the former. Surtsicna (talk) 15:02, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Do you have peer-reviewed sources to support that? I know how rigorous you are on sourcing rules. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:20, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I do. That is what my previous comment is all about. Feel free to match my rigour. Surtsicna (talk) 20:43, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes, 1787 was long ago, and we are not writing an 18th century encyclopedia. The encyclopedia we are writing should conform to 21st century grammar and orthography. It has been demonstrated that this means lower case "presidents". If you disagree, please cite a style guide that says this should be capitalized. And yes, of course, you can expect it to be a perennial topic for as long as basic orthography and Wikipedia's own guideline are both ignored. Surtsicna (talk) 12:42, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Here is an n-gram which shows that upper-casing is the common name and usage. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:00, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Randy, you know that's not what it shows. It shows about 70% capped, 30% lowercase, but if you click through to look at books that those stats come from they are largely books with titles like "Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States" and title-case references to such books. The usage in text is harder to judge. As with many other topics, the n-gram counts greatly exaggerate the capped numbers by counting title-case references, headings, titles, etc. If you do a book search excluding the word "Presidents" from the book title, as here, you still see mostly citations to "Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States" and things like that. As I pointed out above, the n-gram tool doesn't give you an easy way to untangle that. Dicklyon (talk) 03:20, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Here's a more appropriate ngram search that should largely avoid the title case false positives mentioned by Dicklyon. Here's another combining three adjectives for a bigger sample size. They're relatively close, but the lowercase form seems more popular in books over the last several decades. Colin M (talk) 19:48, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
I do not get why ngrams are relevant. We would not do such an analysis to decide whether to use "their", "they're" or "their" in a sentence. Why not simply content ourselves with what the grammar and style experts say? Surtsicna (talk) 22:17, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Agreed. —Eyer (If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message to let me know.) 22:31, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Randy has argued that they're relevant with respect to WP:COMMONNAME. I don't know how sound it is to apply WP:COMMONNAME to small stylistic differences like this - but all I'm trying to point out is that even if you do think ngrams are relevant, the numbers don't support the uppercase versions, as Randy contends. Colin M (talk) 01:13, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
I understand. I am just weary of giving undue weight to such analyses by further engaging in them. Surtsicna (talk) 11:30, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
ngrams *might* be relevant to a discussion aimed at changing MOS:JOBTITLES, but they are irrelevant to this discussion. But unless one is considering overturning WP:TITLEFORMAT, any ngram analysis must carefully exclude any usage of the phrase in titles of works, because titles elsewhere are not necessarily styled in sentence case. YBG (talk) 04:24, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong support – Following long-established title policy and style guidelines helps to keep capitalization meaninful. Here the implication that "Presidents" is somehow part of a proper name is just wrong. The reason for the "perennial issue" is because Randy Kryn argues strenuously to cap just about everything that's important to him, and some other editors follow in a few cases (not in many cases, but in this one, for example). Dicklyon (talk) 19:26, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per manual of style. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 19:34, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. I think it's finally time to follow basic English grammar rules on capitalization and our own manual of style on this. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:07, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Opposed - This is what... the twentieth bite at this particular apple? I point closers to all the other RMs we have had about this, and to the arguments opposed in those discussions. They are still valid. We have repeatedly rejected this over-decapitalization. The issue here is not whether to capitalize the plural of the word “president” (that depends on context)... it is how and when to capitalize the plural of the entire title “President of the United States” (or “President of Brazil”, or “President of Chile” etc). These are the official names of offices. They are capitalized in the singular... and they should continue to be capitalized in the plural. It is similar to how the name “Smith” is capitalized in both the singular (“I visited Mr. Smith” and in the plural (“I visited the Smiths”). Blueboar (talk) 21:36, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
    Did any of those previous discussions come to a consensus? Can you show us one? The most recent one I find, at Talk:List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States/Archive_12#Requested_move_20_May_2018 says:

The result of the move request was: No consensus. ... ... I recommend to the next requester (in six months or so, whenever it may seem appropriate) to propose moving this page AND the List of Vice Presidents of the United States page in a single move request. That would at least solve the WP:CONSISTENCY argument, at least within the United States. (non-admin closure) Red Slash 09:49, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

So we keep trying to reach consensus, which, based on other recent RM discussions, seems possible this time. Dicklyon (talk) 22:05, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
And who says that "they should continue to be capitalized in the plural"? Which authority on English orthography supports this view? You do understand that this claim directly contradicts AP Stylebook, The Chicago Manual of Style, other major style guides, and Wikipedia's own style guide. Surtsicna (talk) 12:42, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - I'm content with either versions (capital or non-capital), as long as they're consistent (all caps or all non-caps) :) GoodDay (talk) 01:06, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
    Consistency is approached gradually, by follow guidelines that indicate which way to go. As nom points out, big progress toward consistency in jobtitles has been made by many recent RM discussions. There's no reason to stop short of the President of the United States, as if it's a too-respected title to treat like the rest. Dicklyon (talk) 01:14, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
What the heck, I'll support the moves. Go which way the winds blow. GoodDay (talk) 01:35, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
GoodDay, the wind was a light breeze if that, RMs attended by two or three editors [EDIT:Besides myself. And the 'governor of New York' RM was well attended, as was the 'List of Vice Presidents of the United States' RM] Please read the relevant RM's and compare them to the May 2018 RM I link to above. Thanks. And *::Dicklyon, as I said above, I joined those very limited discussions and suggested that the nominators not go for the low-hanging fruit but go directly to where the main conversations on the topic had taken place. They didn't do that, and continued with RM's that were attended by two or three other editors [EDIT: Except the 'governors of New York' RM] So I don't think the results of those [EDIT: other] RMs should be taken into account in this one in any way. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:42, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Have you actually looked at those 11 listed recent examples of RMs since May 2018? It is clearly and completely false that they were discussions among only two or three editors. IIRC, exactly none of those fit that description. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:58, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
11? I'm going by the several RMs listed in the nomination, and see that I was wrong in that the 'governor of New York' RM was well attended and have edited my comment. The others listed in the nom weren't. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:40, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
I see what you meant, the pages you mentioned. The links go to the pages, not RM discussions. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:45, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
All of those have had RM discussions since May 2018, and most of them had multi-article RM discussions, and all of them had consensus outcomes, as noted in my comments about each of them. None of the 11 RMs had less than 4 participants, and 5 if you include the closer. Some of them had three times that number or more. —BarrelProof (talk) 04:53, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Five more examples of consensus reached in RMs in about the last two years (bringing the total to 16 identified supporting lowercase plurals per MOS:JOBTITLES):
List of mayors of Leeds – multi-article move to lowercase 1 October 2017 (7 participants not counting the closer)
List of provosts of Aberdeen – multi-article move to lowercase 30 September 2017 (6 participants not counting the closer)
List of mayors of Birmingham – multi-article move to lowercase 21 September 2017 (about 10 participants not counting the closer)
List of mayors of Finsbury – multi-article agreement not to move from lowercase 6 August 2017 and previously also on 18 June 2017 (8 participants not counting the closers)
—BarrelProof (talk) 21:16, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. As per Manual of Style and for consistency. Davidelit (Talk) 02:54, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per MOS:JOBTITLES, AP Stylebook, The Chicago Manual of Style, and every other English language style guide I have seen. In each of them, it is explicit that the plural form "presidents" should be lower case. No evidence has ever been provided that the present capitalization is correct. Without citing an authority on orthography that says the capitalized form is correct, the oppose comments are entirely unsubstantiated. Surtsicna (talk) 12:42, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. "President" and the like should only be capitalized when used in front of a person's name (President Lincoln, Governor Bush, etc., but not the President and Prime Minister). This is how it works in the real world per numerous style guides, like the CMOS [1]. Calidum 19:41, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support—I'm surprised to see this issue still playing out. It was resolved many years ago. Generic vs titular. DOWNCASE. Tony (talk) 23:29, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong support per WP:TITLEFORMAT and MOS:JOBTITLES. The onus is on those who oppose this move to propose a change to one of these rules. Until a change is made by consensus, either modifying one of the rules or by adding an exception that applies to these articles, the clear meaning of these policies requires us to make these moves. YBG (talk) 23:36, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support the style guide is clear here, as well as consistency with other pages. power~enwiki (π, ν) 14:25, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support agree that the style guide of "general mention" applies to these situations. Xinbenlv(t) please notify me with {{ping}} 22:22, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong support per MOS:JOBTITLES, which mandates that these terms be lower case when used generically. Candido (talk) 22:28, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support These and all similarly titled articles should be brought into conformity with WP:MOS and the various other manuals of style. Drdpw (talk) 22:48, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support This follows from MOS:JOBTITLES, and is consistent with a clear majority of RS usage. Also, consensus has supported this direction over the course of many RMs. Looking at the history of RMs involving MOS:JOBTITLES, there have been many involving titles of the form "List of Xs of Y" that have gone from uppercase job title to lowercase (especially in the last several months, but going back as far as 2017), but I have found zero that have gone in the opposite direction (despite some nominations). Colin M (talk) 23:18, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. Same reasons as above. --Pjoona11 (talk) 02:57, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong neutral as the guy who closed the last move request. I'll be thrilled to see any consensus either way. Ten points to the proposer for this enormous multi-move. Red Slash 03:05, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support: It's what our style guide says. We are talking about a bunch people who had that title; a bunch of presidents. SchreiberBike | ⌨  03:43, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose: These sort of titles should be capitalized. WP:MOS should be overturned in these sort of cases to capitalize the title, particularly when the office is held by one person at a time.Theoallen1 (talk) 19:55, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
    • Why? That would be contrary to every style guide cited in this discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 20:08, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support – The MOS guidance on job titles, including presidents, has been reaffirmed in several discussions over the last couple years; examples of use have been refined and have gained consensus. Time to enforce consistency and stop the endless debates. — JFG talk 11:52, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Question Does anyone know if there has ever been an attempt to change the MOS either (a) to allow these JOBTITLES to be capitalized or (b) to allow WP:TITLEFORMAT to be capitalized differently than in running text? YBG (talk) 22:17, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
    Yes, with regard to (a). Until 26 June 2018, during the course of the previous RM discussion about this article, WP:MOS/Biography, the MOS subpage that many people are citing, had a section titled "Occupational titles" that was fairly short and straightforward. It said, in part: "Standard or commonly used names of an office are treated as proper nouns or noun phrases (The British Prime Minister is Theresa May; Hirohito was Emperor of Japan; Louis XVI was King of France)." That was in sync with both WP:MOS/Capital letters (another subpage) and with the main WP:MOS page. The Biography subpage was then changed to its current wording with minimal discussion. Also on 26 June 2018, the MOS:JOBTITLES redirect was changed from pointing to the unchanged Capital Letters subpage to the newly changed Biography subpage. Prior to the changes, it was expected that a proper noun like President of the United States would be capitalized (while generic use of the common noun president would not be), and there was no prohibition on the common practice of pluralizing proper nouns. Station1 (talk) 00:27, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
    My personal recollection is that, taken as a whole, the MoS guidance has not changed substantially, although there was some clarification about a year ago led by SMcCandlish. There was Talk page discussion at the time, which I would not personally call "minimal". I'm surprised to see the example "The British Prime Minister is Theresa May". I don't recall that example, and I wonder how long it was there. The other two examples seem OK, as they appear to be singular uses of a formal title, but "British Prime Minister" does not seem to be a proper formal title, so it seems incorrect. None of those three involve the plural issue. Those examples do not describe membership in classes. Examples of incorrect usage would be "Hirohito was an Emperor of Japan" or "Louis XVI was a King of France" or "Louis XVI was the last of the Kings of France". —BarrelProof (talk) 01:22, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
    Re changing WP:TITLEFORMAT to use title-case titles instead of sentence case, a couple of editors have brought it up, but I can't recall a serious discussion of it. It wouldn't resolve the underlying styling questions, but would keep them out of RM (title) discussions; that would probably not be a net win. And for title-case titles to work, we'd either need to make a ton of alternate-case redirects, or make links case-insensitive, to make in-text links work (like the way the first letter is already case insensitive to allow in-text linking without capping the first letter). This would be a huge disruptive change for many reasons. It was decided early on not to go that way. Dicklyon (talk) 02:19, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per User:Surtsicna and others. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:28, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support I think what might be confusing to some is that phrase is so often encountered capitalized. However, this is because the context is usually to introduce a particular president of the United States, as in President of the United States Donald Trump, or the context uses title case, like the title of a book or an article in a publication that uses title case in its titles. For better or for worse we use sentence case in our WP titles, so neither reason to capitalize presidents applies here. --В²C ☎ 19:36, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. In these titles, "presidents" and "vice presidents" are descriptions, not proper nouns. There are no plural job titles, there is President of... but never Presidents of.... Per the policies/guidelines already cited above, these renames are supported by community consensus. Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there  03:59, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong Support per MOS:JOBTITLES. This is how it is done in most major style guides including the Chicago Manual of Style, which our own MOS borrows heavily from. CThomas3 (talk) 11:12, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Pipelinks

Latest comment: 4 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

In these recent edits

Overall, despite WP:IAR, I think it best to follow established norms. Do pagewatchers have any preference? What should be done with these changes? YBG (talk) 04:13, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

I'd remove unnecessary pipes. — JFG talk 07:56, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
I removed the pipes again because their restoration was done without any explanation and in contravention of perfectly sensible Wikipedia guidelines. There are probably more that should be removed. Surtsicna (talk) 10:01, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Why do pipe links exist, if they're so terrible? Seems to me, usage or non-usage shouldn't matter. GoodDay (talk) 17:05, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Because they are often necessary. And why usage or non-usage matters is explained at WP:NOPIPE and WP:NOTBROKEN. Surtsicna (talk) 17:32, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Pipe links are "terrible" when they are unnecessary, that is to say, when there is a perfectly good redirect that accomplishes the same thing without cluttering up the wikitext. They are helpful (and should be used) when such a redirect does not exist.
  • [[indirectly elected]] is more readable than [[Indirect election|indirectly elected]], and works just fine because an appropriately named redirect page exists.
  • 1st<br>[[vice president of the United States]] is far better than [[Vice President of the United States|1st<br />vice president of the United States]]
When a redirect does not exist - and especially if it should not exist - then a pipelink is perfectly appropriate. For example, in the lede paragraph of All the President's Men (film), it says ...it is based on the [[All the President's Men|1974 non-fiction book of the same name]] ... Clearly, the pipelink cannot be avoided using a redirect. YBG (talk) 17:53, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Sortable table

Latest comment: 4 years ago21 comments3 people in discussion

I have reverted the addition of sorting to the main table. This addition seems on the surface to be an innocuous addition of an optional feature that readers can choose to use or ignore. But the benefits seem hardly worth it.

  • Presidency. Restores the original order.
  • President. Seems to sort by the file name of the uploaded picture, so LBJ comes before Abe.
  • Prior office. Sorts first by ordinal number (1st, 2nd, ...) then by the name of the office.
  • Party. Sorts by party name, the only really meaningful alternative order, but the table rows are so tall that only a few can be seen, rendering this also of relatively little value.
  • Election. Exactly the same order as the original ordering by the first column.
  • Vice president. Sorts by the VP's first name, not very useful at all.

I suggest that per [WE:BRD]] WP:BRD, the unsorted status quo ante be retained until a consensus is reached on some other alternative. YBG (talk) 15:25, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Those reasons listed all scream "unnecessary".
  1. "hardly worth it" or
  2. "relatively little value" or
  3. "not very useful at all".
Your opinion that it may not be necessary is not adequate justification to take away that option from others who want to do it. As for the other reason, namely that it:
  • "restores the original order"
Not sure how that is even a bad/negative thing to have. It's actually a very desirable option in any sortable table to have as it spares one from having the need to reload the page in order to get back to the original order. That's kinda the whole point of sorting columns with rank order numbers in them. It's actually bad that some tables (not this one) don't have such simple rank columns and therefore can't be sorted back to the original order without reloading the page. So in that respect this table is actually ahead of those.
But here is the most important thing: if anybody doesn't need sorting they continue to not need them: so by all means, continue to NOT sort anything! That ability is not taken away. But what about the readers who do want to sort? Why is such reader denied the option purely on account that an editor or editors deem it "unnecessary"? Adding the option doesn't take anything away from anyone but not adding it does.
So I suggest as per WP:OWNBEHAVIOR not to dispute minor edits and revert a change simply because as an editor finds something "unnecessary" without additionally claiming that the change is above and beyond also detrimental. This is the most minor of minor edits (WP:MINOR). I can't stress enough how all this is purely optional:— it doesn't replace or take way anything from anyone. So let's treat a minor edit like a minor edit and move on. --Loginnigol (talk) 06:43, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
This subject has been previously discussed, as found in the archives:
In these discussions, the main objection to sorting is stronger than my "not very useful" argument. Editors objected to the fact that sorting tables with |rowspan= necessarily adds extra rows that remain even after resorting back to the original order: Madison, FDR, and Nixon are all changed into four rows; Jackson, Grant and McKinley are changed into three rows, and 20 are changed into two rows. The only ones that remain a single row are the 19 presidencies which didn't involve a 2nd term or a party change or a VP death/resignation/confirmation. Thus, sorting (even by the 1st column) changes our 45-row table into an 80-row table, nearly doubling the vertical space consumed. On my laptop, this changes it from 14½ to 26 screens. The number of page-downs required to scan the table nearly eliminates the usefulness of sorting by party, IMO the most useful alternate sort.
Nevertheless, if you really want to add sorting, let me offer the following in an effort to reach consensus: Add sorting only for those columns where it gives a meaningful order. IMO only three columns would satisfy this without adding special {{sort}} parameters:
  • Presidency - sorts into chronological order
  • Party - sorts into meaningful categories (could be improved be adding {{sort}} to force "unaffiliated" to the top or bottom)
  • Election - sorts into chronological order
IMO, the other columns should be marked |class=unsortable (unless {{sort}} is added to provide a meaningful order):
  • President. To be meaningful, should sort by President name (not by image name).
  • Prior office. To be meaningful, should sort by office ignoring ordinals so VPs sort separate from cabinet officials, instead of e.g. the 8th VP coming between the 7th and 8th Secretary of State. Ideally (1) federal officers by branch (executive/legislative/judicial) then by rank then by office then by date (2) state officials in a similar order (3) military officials by rank then date (4) last of all Trump.
  • Vice president. To be meaningful, should use the standard last-then-first name sort (not first-then-last). Ideally, sort "office vacant" at the end of the list.
To see the effects I've described here (multiple rows and unusual sorting), look at this version and try sorting by each column.
YBG (talk) 07:13, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Good idea. It's fine to restrict the sorting to certain columns if that sorts out the technical issues. Thanks for the heads up about the previous discussions — I wasn't aware of those. --Loginnigol (talk) 16:16, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
The technical issues it will fix are only meaningless sorting, it will do nothing to rectify the issue of adding extra rows caused by |rowspan=, which is the main reason why previous discussions/consensuses rejected sorting multiple times. Consequently, I don't think it wise to make a change just based on the wishes of 1½ people - 1 for Loginnigol and ½ for me(YBG). But 08:18, 29 October 2019 (UTC)I so that to make it easier for all editors to see what is being proposed, I will implement it and then immediately self-revert. YBG (talk) 19:30, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
OK, I've made the changes. The three alternatives can be seen in the links below:
  1. 0 col sort. No sorting so no extra-row issue or meaningless sorts.
  2. 3 col sort. Sorting with extra-row issue but no meaningless sorts.
  3. All col sort. Sorting with extra-row issue and meaningless sorts.
Pagewatches and all other editors welcome to chime in. YBG (talk) 19:51, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
I looked into the technical issue and basically the problem is that it's a poorly designed table. The reason why presidents are duplicated when sorting is because all the multiple-term presidents (that's a lot of them) are split and are actually each occupying not one but two rows on the table — it seems like one because most of the rows in each columns are merged with one exception: the column titled "Election" which contains nothing more than the year of election. So that one column is creating this big mess that has been going on for years, a totally unnecessary (speaking of unnecessary things :) problem that wouldn't exist with a table that has a better layout. Merging that "bad" column instantly solves all the sorting issues here and prevent duplicates while sorting. There are additionally one or two other presidents where another column than "Elections" is split but those are too few and have little impact. The big culprit is that one column, which causes nearly half of all presidents on the list to multiply. --Loginnigol (talk) 22:14, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
@Loginnigol: I'm not sure what you mean by merging the election column. Here's my analysis of the 45 presidency rows:
(a) 19 rows have no change in party, election, or VP
(b) 8 rows with 1 in party, 2 in election, 1 in VP: Washington, Monroe, Wilson, Eisenhower, Reagan, Clinton, Bush 43, and Obama
(c) 4 rows with 1 in party, 1 in election, 2 in VP: Pierce, Cleveland 22, Taft, Ford
(d) 2 rows with 2 in party, 1 in election, 1 in VP: Tyler, Johnson 18
(e) 5 rows with 1 in party, 2 in election, 2 in VP: Jefferson, Lincoln, TR, Coolidge, HST, LBJ6→5 YBG (talk) 08:28, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
(e2) 1 row with 2 in party, 2 in election, 2 in VP: Lincolnadded YBG (talk) 08:28, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
(f) 3 rows with 1 in party, 2 in election, 3 in VP: Jackson, Grant, McKinley
(g) 2 rows with 1 in party, 2 in election, 4 in VP: Madison, Nixon
(h) 1 rows with 1 in party, 4 in election, 3 in VP: FDR
Could you clarify what you mean my merging the election column? YBG (talk) 01:22, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
What I mean is if the double rows (cells) inside one president's column "Election" (which happens when that president is re-elected) if that data is merged. In other words that means for example the two cells of Obama's "2008" and "2012" are merged and put in one table cell instead of two separate cells. --Loginnigol (talk) 15:18, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
I think that would only resolve the problems in the 8 presidencies listed under (b) above, leaving the problem present in 18 presidencies.
  • The 4 presidencies listed in (c) could be resolved by a similar stratagem, but this would mean that if we implemented meaningful sorting by VP in the future, the 2nd VP entry (Office Vacant) would not sort together.
  • The 2 presidencies listed in (d) could be resolved by a similar stratagem merging the party column, but this would mean that sorting by party would no longer accurately represent the 2nd party entry (Tyler's unaffiliated and Johnson 18's Democratic) would not be sorted with the other comparable entries.
  • The 12 presidencies listed in (e/f/g/h) are even more troublesome.
I may have overlooked something, Loginnigol, but it seems to me you were a bit optimistic in saying There are additionally one or two other presidents where another column than "Elections" is split. YBG (talk) 21:03, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
There are other ways of dealing with the "exceptions" (by footnoting them for example). Or other solutions like for example by splitting items in additional columns instead of rows. I'm sure if you ask for a more experienced layout expert advice somewhere on Wikipedia they can give you advice. There is also another solution: create separate tables for separate data. There is no rule that every information has to be shoe-horned into one single table. There are countless Wikipedia pages with more than one table in them. In other words, where there is a will there is a way. --Loginnigol (talk) 23:38, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, you are suggesting that the extra VP or extra party affiliation be placed in a footnote or in an additional column; either of these possibilities would preclude sorting all VPs or all party affiliations in a single sort. Separating the table into multiple tables might work, but that would significantly change the presentation, and so should be suggested in a separate thread, in which the ability to sort without creating extra rows would be listed as a positive to be weighed against other factors involved. I'm not sure I would support such a change, but if someone wishes to make a specific proposal (in a ==new talk page section==), I will be glad to consider it. Thank you for your thought-provoking discussion of the sorting issue, it has been much appreciated. YBG (talk) 08:14, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Proposed restructuring to accomodate sorting

Here's my attempt at a table that's sortable by chronological order, president's last name, prior office, party, and election, without any "fake" rows. In my opinion, the only real downside is that each president has to be assigned one party for the purposes of sorting and the color bar, but I feel ok with that. There are only five presidents who could reasonably be described as being in multiple parties, but we've (rightly imo) listed Washington as unaffiliated, and listed JQA as a Democratic-Republican. So that leaves Tyler (unaffiliated for the large majority of his tenure), Lincoln (the National Union Party was little more than a temporary name change), and Johnson (it's not even clear to me that he should be described as a Democrat). I also cut some vice presidential info that doesn't seem necessary to me. Orser67 (talk) 18:55, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
Here's the same table I linked before, but with a few more presidents added. Orser67 (talk) 19:48, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
Pinging User:YBG and User:Loginnigol (and anyone else on this talk page), for thoughts on this proposal. Orser67 (talk) 18:29, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
There might be a solution for the color bars of presidents that had different party affiliation during their first term versus second term: create one vertical color bar with two colors in it (or even more than 2 if necessary). Don't ask me how that should be done but surely such a simple thing is not beyond the technical capabilities of Wiki software? Then we don't have to be forced to choose between one party or the other like Orser67 suggested. --Loginnigol (talk) 01:22, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Here are my thoughts
  1. I agree that the party colorbar issue can be solved.Unless someone finds that to be a showstopper, I suggest it be ignored until there is a consensus on everything else, or even until after everything else has been implemented in the article.
  2. I notice that the election column no longer sorts chronologically, instead separating out those who were elected from those who were not. At first I thought this was a bug but now I think it is a feature.
  3. The proposal eliminates any possibility of sorting by VP. This seems ok to me and is a reasonable concession.
  4. The election and VP columns are no longer coordinated. This is a real shame, but could be rectified be combining these two columns. The only problem with this is that the combined cell might cause the row to be taller and force the table to take up more vertical real estate than is necessary.
  5. Above all the one thing I am most concerned about is whether the corresponding VP list can be changed in the same way. Previous discussions on this page seem IMO to have established a consensus that these two pages should be kept in synch as far as scope and format.
My overall attitude to this proposal fluctuates between cautious optimism and lukewarm ambivalence. My comments here are intended to make sure that the proposal be the very best. Of particular interest to me is what long time contributors have to say. YBG (talk) 01:39, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Thank you YBG for the very thorough response; I too am interested in the opinions of additional contributors to this list. To your points: the elections column could be sorted such that e.g. Tyler comes after Harrison rather than appearing at the bottom, but I agree with you that being able to sort the elected presidents from the unelected ones is a bug rather than a feature feature rather than a bug. As for VPs, I personally don't see a problem with separating VPs from elections, but I can appreciate that some might prefer a connection between the two. I think my basic assumption is that, while we should list the VPs here, this a list of presidents and not VPs and so we don't need to say much about them other than when they served and who they served under. Orser67 (talk) 19:08, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Also, thank you for your response, Loginnigol. I'm not sure if there's a way to deal with the color bars better than I have, but I don't claim to be an expert on making tables so perhaps someone out there knows of a better way. Orser67 (talk) 19:16, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Elected presidents only

Latest comment: 4 years ago10 comments5 people in discussion

I decided to do temporary edit of the table to highlight how the table might look like if it included only elected presidents. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_presidents_of_the_United_States&oldid=925257147

I know it probably isn't fair reflection as we don't know what president that died in office might or might not have done had they lived. Some might obviously have just served their term and that would be it. In other cases they might have served the term and then run again maybe won against someone that was actually elected president. IN other cases it might actually have prevented someone to run for his own term instead. DoctorHver (talk) 22:04, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Did/do you have a purpose or proposal in mind? Drdpw (talk) 23:13, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm curious what the point of vandalizing (and yes, that's what it was, even just to try something out and for a second - you have a sandbox, you could have copied it there) the article for this weird little mental exercise was. --Golbez (talk) 00:56, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
FWIW, your temporary edit wasn't exactly implemented accurately. If had been? you would've gotten T. Roosevelt (1905-09), Coolidge (1925-29), Truman (1949-53) & L. Johnson (1965-69). GoodDay (talk) 23:56, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
The lede paragraph states
  1. The POTUS is the head of state
  2. The POTUS is the head of government
  3. The POTUS is indirectly elected to ...
  4. The POTUS leads the executive branch
  5. The POTUS is the commander-in-chief
Of these five, all but one apply equally to all elected and to all un-elected Presidents. The factoid about election applies at least partly to eight of the nine un-elected Presidents (ie, all except Gerald Ford were elected as VP), so such a change in the scope of this article would require a fair deal of wordsmithing gymnastics to the lede.
If you consider the universe of information about US presidents, they would seem to fall into three categories:
(a) Information relevant only to elected Presidents
(b) Information relevant only to un-elected Presidents
(c) Information relevant equally to both
IMHO, this article falls squarely in category (c). Summaries of information in category (a) find their place in our encyclopedia in the various lists of Presidential elections. I can think of no information specific to category (a) that would not be found in articles about Presidential elections, so I see to transform this list along the lines of the test edit. However, I do not believe there is a specific list article to summarize information from category (b), and such an article listing the nine non-electoral accessions to the Presidency may well have some merit. So for causing the little grey cells to consider such a list article, I thank DoctorHver. YBG (talk) 06:01, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Why are you trying to separate Tyler, Fillmore, A. Johnson, Arthur, T. Roosevelt, Coolidge, Truman, L. Johnson & Ford from the list? There were also presidents of the United States. GoodDay (talk) 15:38, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
@GoodDay: I presume you are asking DoctorHver, because he is the only one who (by his trial edit) might be considered to have tried to separate unelected presidents from the elected ones. YBG (talk) 22:03, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Yup, I didn't see your name next to the 6:01 post. Apologies. GoodDay (talk) 01:18, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
No worries, just wanting to make sure we're all communicating clearly YBG (talk) 04:40, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
@DoctorHver: Could clarify: Was your test edit a way of asking other editors to consider such a change? Or were you just curious at what such a list would look like?
YBG (talk) 22:03, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 December 2019

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

"CHANGE 44 men have served as president to 45 men have served as president" "CHANGE While the incumbent U.S. president, Donald Trump, is the nation's 45th president, he is only the 44th person to serve as U.S. president. TO While the recently impeached U.S. president, Donald Trump, was the nation's 45th president, he was only the 44th person to serve as U.S. president." "CHANGE the 45th and current president is Donald Trump (since January 20, 2017). TO the 45th and current president WAS" "CHANGE 173.66.10.187 (talk) 03:03, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

  Not done: impeached doesn't mean removed - Trump is still the President DannyS712 (talk) 03:04, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 December 2019

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Change president Trump's date from January 20, 2017 – Incumbent to January 20, 2017 – December 18, 2019 as part of Trump's impeachment 2603:9000:F700:5200:5910:1F0F:8B20:A6F0 (talk) 00:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Not done - Trump is still president of the United States. It's the Senate that decides if he continues in office, or not. GoodDay (talk) 00:14, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

John Tyler portrait change

Latest comment: 4 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion
 

The current one was taken WAY after his presidency (in 1860 to be exact) and is very inaccurate when documenting the man's presidency. I suggest we change to this one, as previously suggested by a user here but through improper means of editing the article without prior consensus. Here's my portrait suggestion, taken when the man was actually president: --MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 20:36, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. GoodDay (talk) 19:54, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
I also agree. Let's change it. YBG (talk) 21:49, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
I have no particular objection, but sources seem to say the current portrait was taken ca. 1845 [2] and the proposed one created ca. 1860-65 [3]. Or am I reading them wrong? Station1 (talk) 23:04, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Must've been a misprint or something along those lines, I tried digging into it but couldn't find anything. Seems to be a repeated thing, plus Tyler being a fairly unpopular and obscure president probably didn't help. I'm sure, though, the proposed one was definitely not after the current one, especially more than a decade-older, considering the apparent age difference in both. Tyler's official portrait looks to be based on the current one, and that was finished in 1859, so that's another point. --MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 07:11, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Going by my John Tyler book (written by Gary May), the proposed image is of a younger Tyler. GoodDay (talk) 14:57, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Looks like we got agreement here, I'll be switching the portraits now. --MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 20:47, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Impeachments

Latest comment: 4 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion

Why is a discussion of presidents who have been impeached not relevant or appropriate for this page when there are other discussions regarding first president, shortest/longest terms, dead’s in office from illness, assassinations, and resignations? I would argue impeachment is an extremely rare and thus relevant point to be made, especially in the context of other reasons for leaving office (death, resignation); Impeachment is the only other means of leaving office. With the caveat that none have been removed via the process. Shazen27 (talk) 14:44, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

In this list article, it is proper to mention when presidents die in office either from assassination or from natural causes, but we do not exhaustively list all attempted assassinations nor all serious presidential illnesses. The attempted assassination of Reagan is significant as was Eisenhower's heart attack, but neither rate a mention in this list article.
Similarly, impeachment in this list is significant when it has an impact on the tenure of office. Hence, we mention impeachment in connection with Nixon's resignation, but we make no mention of the impeachments of Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton, much less the attempted impeachments of Tyler, Cleveland, Hoover, Truman, Nixon, Reagan and Bush 41. YBG (talk) 04:01, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
It's obvious that there is some sort of presidential campaign-related activity going on to insert impeachment everywhere all of a sudden. This issue is popping up in countless pages that are rather tangentially or thinly-related to the matter (and that up to now never had such discussions). It looks like American politics-related vandalism (yet again). Paid trolls and bots just can't keep their dirty hands off of Wikipedia and it will get worse this new year. --Loginnigol (talk) 16:06, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Might be WP:PAID, but seems just as likely to be overly enthusiastic political junkies that don't understand WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE and so want the latest news infatuation to be present in every tangentially-related article. Sounds a lot like the 24-hour news cycle.
But blatant attempts for WP:POV-based scope expansion should be carefully watched and resisted. YBG (talk) 07:30, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Of course there are plenty overly enthusiastic cases. However the exact problem suddenly popping up in way too many unrelated pages is what gives me the suspicion that this is some sort of action by operatives. Apparently even the campaigners themselves are on Wikipedia editing stuff (Pete Buttigieg is allegedly on wiki under the pseudonym "Streeling"). --Loginnigol (talk) 13:50, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps the issue should be broached in some discussion board? YBG (talk) 17:48, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
The paragraph concerns presidents who left office intra-term (ie. not at the end of their four-Year term). Someday, when an impeached president is convicted at trial and removed from office, that early departure from office along with the reason will be noted (presuming the article still contains such information at that time). Drdpw (talk) 18:54, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
In agreement with the others. Unless a president is convicted/removed from office & thus suddenly ending his tenure? there's no need to mention impeachment in this article. GoodDay (talk) 19:02, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Proper treatment of "Prior Office"

Latest comment: 4 years ago32 comments10 people in discussion

According to the footnote, this should only list prior state or federal public offices. Pres. Trump's listing has, in the past, included a professional listing, referring to his time with the Trump org. I've made edits (attempted to be undone) to make the entry consistent with the footnote. Of note, there is nothing pejorative about his not having held public office in the past. Rather, some might say, it's a testament to how unique he is. The listing of the Trump org role is inconsistent with the intent of the page imo. Jeffme (talk) 06:07, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

I have restored the status quo ante of the Trump entry and the note text which are consistent with each other and with the consensus arrived at before the 2016 election. I didn't take the time to research the history of the note text but simply adapted the text from the VP list where interestingly the non-governmental exception is less needed. The uniqueness of Trump is still there although shared with Taylor, Grant, Hoover and Eisenhower. By WP:BRD I am not categorically opposed to a change but think it should come after a new consensus is reached on this talk page. YBG (talk) 12:34, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
See Talk:List of presidents of the United States/Archive 8 § Templates revised with columns reordered for the pre-election consensus. The footnote change came later, if memory serves. YBG (talk) 13:13, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
See Talk:List of presidents of the United States/Archive 7 § Layout for the president-elect for the discussion that led to the discussion. YBG (talk) 13:42, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Military commands, seem to be a grey area. GoodDay (talk) 13:22, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Yea, there's a difference between "no prior elected office" and "no prior state or federal office". It is a definite distinction but not one that IMO merits undue emphasis. YBG (talk) 13:42, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
YBG - thanks for all the additional background. I didn't realize how much that this had been discussed in the past, although it's not surprising. IMO, the prior office info should remain, without regard to elected or not. And, I don't think military commands are a grey area at all - all members of the military are "officers," either commissioned, or non-commissioned. And all take the oath. Jeffme (talk) 03:56, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Ima take this opportunity to argue against the inclusion of this column at all. It is sometimes subjective, doesn't really add much, certainly doesn't explain why people became president except in a few obvious cases (Ford), etc. --Golbez (talk) 15:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
I agree. This is not such basic info that it needs to be in a list. Removing it will also make the list less cluttered. Station1 (talk) 20:45, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
I would support removing the column entirely, as it adds little pertinent information, and as removing it would also make the list less cluttered. I will also note that individuals' prior office information can readily found at: List of presidents of the United States by military rank ◆ List of presidents of the United States by military service ◆ List of presidents of the United States by other offices held ◆ List of presidents of the United States by previous experience. Drdpw (talk) 20:43, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
In agreement with eliminating the column, if we do the same at the List of vice presidents of the United States article. GoodDay (talk) 20:49, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm in favor of keeping it. It's great context for where our Presidents have come from, in terms of experience or qualifications. As for it containing information that could be found elsewhere... isn't that pretty true of all lists? Perhaps it's not essential to be on this list, or it warrants a separate page, but the fact that you'd have to search across several of the lists Drdpw provided (TY!), sort of proves the value of having all types of prior office on this page. Jeffme (talk) 03:56, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
A separate note - should this column remain, and Pres. Trump's entry also remain as status quo, suggest it be modified to reflect that he was not the Chairman of the Trump Organization until at least 1973. In 1973, Fred Trump was listed as the chairman in a lawsuit against the Trump Org. I searched, but was unable to find a source citation for when he was appointed as chairman. Jeffme (talk) 03:56, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

@Jeffme, GoodDay, Golbez, Drdpw, and Station1: It seems to me that List of presidents of the United States by previous experience has all of the information contained in the prior office column except that it is does not list the ordinal number or years of service, no doubt because that article has received far less editorial attention than this one. I propose the following

  1. Expand List of presidents of the United States by previous experience to iinclude all info from the prior office column on this page.
  2. Create List of vice presidents of the United States by previous experience with at least the info contained in the prior office column of List of vice presidents of the United States.
  3. Delete the prior office column from this page and from the corresponding VP page.

I believe this would clean up this page while providing all of the prior service information in a single easily accessible list, thus satisfying all of the concerns that have been expressed here. Any thoughts? Have I missed anything? YBG (talk) 13:19, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Option #3, is my preferred choice. GoodDay (talk) 15:22, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
@GoodDay: Actually, I wasn't listing options. My proposal was to do all three things. I was expecting that 1 and 2 would be considered by some to be prerequisites for 3. It sounds to me that you would be willing to implement 3 without 1 and 2. But I presume you wouldn't object to doing 1 and 2 in addition. YBG (talk) 02:20, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
Oh. Yeah, implement all three plans. GoodDay (talk) 02:23, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
I think your proposal is a good one YBG. Drdpw (talk) 12:41, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
I'm definitely in favor of #3. I don't think #1 and #2 are necessary prerequisites but certainly have no objection if someone wants to do that. Station1 (talk) 05:39, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
I thought it was a list of options as well and would support 3, but if it's a package deal, go for it. I don't care if the data's on Wikipedia as long as it's not here. --Golbez (talk) 04:39, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I believe the "Prior Office" section should remain as it's such a common occurrence for a President to move into the role from a lower government office; a transitional period if you will. Though if a President has no prior office, something completely unrelated to government like "The Trump Organisation" shouldn't be put there to fill in the blank. "No prior state or federal office" is perfectly fine for Trump's section as it's the truth. 5.81.43.95 (talk) 01:34, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I'd say that the way it was before (back in December, for example) was a good compromise that told people what they needed to know about a president's previous job, including those who had not served in elected office before. --Coemgenus (talk) 19:03, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Listing "President and Chairman of The Trump Organization" under offices which are explicitly described as being either with a state or the federal government is factually wrong and misleading to the readers. Trump is notable for being the first president without prior military or government service. Something so significant should not be obscured by listing business ownership instead. Surtsicna (talk) 00:07, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely. I don't understand how that nonsense managed to stay in the "Prior Office" section for so long. I've had to revert it back to "No prior federal or state office" twice in 2 days because people keep reverting it back to "President of the Trump Organisation" for some reason. What's next? "Prior Office: Retail Store Clerk"? 5.81.43.95 (talk) 00:30, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

I think that "No prior federal or state office" should be changed to "No prior federal, state or municipal office". Either Pete Buttigieg or Mike Bloomberg could conceivably win the Democratic primaries and subsequent election and while they have been mayors neither have held federal or state office. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 20:21, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Millionsandbillions: Regarding that note, I have changed No prior federal or state office → No prior political or military office. Also, I have changed the footnote at the top of the "Prior office" column → Listed here is the most recent political or military office held by the individual prior to becoming president. Drdpw (talk) 01:03, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I thought we were gonna delete that damn column? both here & at the List of vice presidents of the United States article. GoodDay (talk) 21:11, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, I did it. And a whole lot more. Do what thou wilt with my work. --Golbez (talk) 19:04, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
It's good that you removed the 'prior office' bit, but you also added other features, without discussion. I had to revert everything, because I couldn't parse them. GoodDay (talk) 19:15, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Oh well! [also it was good I did the other things] --Golbez (talk) 19:17, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Note: I've removed the prior office column, from vice presidents list article, too. GoodDay (talk) 19:35, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

well at least if my six hours of work this morning did anything, it was shake up the list and make it much more chaotic. at least maybe some good things will come of it. not what's there now imo, but hey, it's better than what was there before. --Golbez (talk) 04:28, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Images used by LTA

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

A few times here & at List of vice presidents of the United States, questionable images (license wise) have over the weeks been added (since reverted several times) by @Lennox Theodore Anderson:. Having contacted him about this in the past, he's failed to respond. Not sure what to do about this. GoodDay (talk) 04:17, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Gentlemen, concerning this article & related articles, we've a problem & it's the editor Lennox Theodore Anderson. What can be done? GoodDay (talk) 21:19, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Adding Years and Days

Latest comment: 4 years ago14 comments4 people in discussion

I propose adding in the "Presidency" column underneath the second date of each President, in smaller writing, the number of years plus days they were in office. Example: (4 years, 23 days).Zdawg1029 (talk) 19:15, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Too trivial. GoodDay (talk) 19:53, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Well, that's just like your opinion man. I don't think it's too trivial. It gives someone a lot quicker understanding how long they were in office. Zdawg1029 (talk) 01:31, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
It's just not necessary. Many of the US presidents have served either 1 full term or 2 full terms & so we'd only be repeating the same numbers. Besides, we already have List of presidents of the United States by time in office, which deals with this. GoodDay (talk) 01:35, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
There are many Presidents however who did not serve one full term, or two full terms. If you want to go down that road, look at the very next column to the right, next to the pictures of all of them. It says the years they were born, but underneath those dates it says the number of years that amounts to in smaller type. Why not get rid of that? I mean the dates are right there. Anyone can do the math should they please. It's just trivial isn't it? It's called making it easier for the reader. Zdawg1029 (talk) 05:46, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Agreed, thank you for proposing we remove the lifespan. ;) But seriously, I hate that, it adds nothing to an understanding of the subject, and neither does the specific number of days they were in office. --Golbez (talk) 14:50, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
I've no objections to 'removing' the lifespan years. GoodDay (talk) 15:16, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
I too have no objection to removing the lifespan years. I do however, object to adding the number of years plus days to the table, as it would add information that can readily be found in a separate list article (which is why I also support removing the “Prior office” column from this list article). Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 16:36, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
You people are out of your minds and high on Wiki-power. Zdawg1029 (talk) 22:54, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
If we were "high on Wiki-power" we'd've deleted it already .--Golbez (talk) 23:08, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
lol I keep thinking about this. Out of our minds and high on wiki-power? OK champ, you want to call me mad with power, you're gonna get it. --Golbez (talk) 20:53, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
I'M MAD WITH POWER HAHAHAHA --Golbez (talk) 11:51, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
You're not even American. What do you care about this article? Zdawg1029 (talk) 23:13, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Seriously folks, this is no longer a constructive discussion; please stop this. Drdpw (talk) 00:16, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Seeking input

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

A point of contention has arisen between myself and another editor over how to denote Donald Trump's "Number of terms" in the table at List of presidents of the United States by time in office. At issue is whether the Donald Trump row's Number of terms column should state "Serving first term" or "Serving incumbent term". I am asking for input and help in resolving the matter from watchers of this page. Please leave your thoughts on the article's talk page: Talk:List of presidents of the United States by time in office#Denoting Donald Trump's "Number of terms". Thank you very much. Drdpw (talk) 21:58, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 April 2020

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

President Woodrow Wilson was clearly a Republican 63.245.154.160 (talk) 13:01, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

 N No he was not; Wilson was a member of the Democratic Party. Drdpw (talk) 13:36, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Jimmy Carter Photo

Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
 
The Current Image of Jimmy Carter on the Article that is grainy and in low quality.
 
Another Image of Jimmy Carter that is in higher Resolution with less pixels and less grainy.

I am thinking about changing the Jimmy Carter Image in the article. The file on the bottom is more clear, you can see his hair, his eyes, and his skin are way more detailed. It is less grainy, has less pixels, and has higher resolution. I will seek notice before changing the image. Thanks! Lennox Theodore Anderson (talk) 10:56, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

The top photo has sharper colours. The bottom photo appears faded. GoodDay (talk) 22:55, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

The top photo has a weird green dot at his chin and his eyes are unclear. Lennox Theodore Anderson (talk) 5:24, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't see a weird green dot & his eyes look normal. GoodDay (talk) 20:16, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
I prefer the color/lighting of the current image that we use for him. I will note that it's also the current lead image of his article. If it's good enough for the lead image of his main biography article it should be good enough for this list. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:28, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 June 2020

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

In the section with the text: "Additionally, several former presidents campaigned unsuccessfully for another term as president or for other U.S. state or federal elective offices after serving as president."

These presidents each failed re-election to the office: John Adams John Quincy Adams Martin Van Buren Grover Cleveland Benjamin Harrison William Howard Taft Herbert Hoover Gerald Ford Jimmy Carter George H. W. Bush 70.114.154.112 (talk) 20:11, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. JTP (talk • contribs) 00:32, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Permanent Semi-Protection

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Why isn't this page under permanent semi-protection? It should only change ever four (4) years, and seems to garner constant vandalism attacks. It seems a waste of time for conscientious personnel on Wikipedia to rather constantly have to watch a page...that shouldn't be in question very often?Mjquinn_id (talk) 18:34, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree, especially as there have been multiple attempts of vandalism in the past few days alone. Dr. Blazer (talk) 23:54, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
In agreement. GoodDay (talk) 00:05, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Sorting by length of full term

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Although wikipedia has the sorting of Presidency by length of days, there has been no expansion of the enclosed footnote to point out differences in length of a full term. (That footnote is: "Washington's first inauguration was held 1 month and 26 days later. As a result, his first term was only 1,404 days long (as opposed to the usual 1,461), and was the shortest term for a U.S. president who served a full term.") The usual term length is 1461 days (having each year at 365 days except for extra day in leap year).

In ascending number of days in a full term: Washington's 1st term (see above); Franklin Roosevelt's 1st term (inaugurated March 4, 1933, the last Presidential inauguration before the change to January 20); tie between John Adams' term and McKinley's 1st term (each was 1460 days because of 1800 and 1900 not being leap years); tie among all other full Presidential terms. Carlm0404 (talk) 19:40, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

As that footnote was the only mention of "days served in a full term", a tangential detail in the context of this list-article, I was wp:BOLD and removed the footnote rather than add additional notes on the length of J. Adams' term, W. McKinley's 1st term and FDR's 1st term. People can look to List of presidents of the United States by time in office (which has a sortable table) for an explanation of these peculiarities. Drdpw (talk) 20:34, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Veep vacancy dates

Latest comment: 3 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

@GoldRingChip: & @Sleyece:, if it will ease the tension, just add "until Noon EST" in those sections. Anyways, those pre-25th Amendment vacancies ended at Noon EST on March 4 or Noon EST on January 20. GoodDay (talk) 19:19, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

As I understand stand it, prior to adoption of A-20, terms of members of Congress ended, not by law or statute, but by custom at midnight March 3/4. Now, concerning pre-1933 VP vacancies, they only ended when a new VP took office (end of vacant term is beside the point); therefore, March 4 is correct. Drdpw (talk) 20:10, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
I'd argue that about the congressional terms pre-20th amendment, per the records of lame-duck Congresses doing work during the morning of March 4. But, that's another discussion :) GoodDay (talk) 20:15, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
They did so, I believe, by continuing the March 3 legislative day. Drdpw (talk) 20:33, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
There's a lot of those pre-20th amendment representatives & senators BPs, which need correction on their dates, from March 3 to March 4. GoodDay (talk) 20:38, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
I'm fine with that as a compromise, except for the fact that the modern concept of an Eastern Time Zone was changed and established in 1938 based on railroad stop times. Some of these vacancies predate railroads themselves. -- Sleyece (talk) 20:50, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
March 4, is the way to go :) GoodDay (talk) 21:28, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
As I stated above, March 4 is correct. Adding "until Noon EST" to the date of any pre-20th Amendment vacancy is, however, unnecessary and, policy wise, original research, as such wording isn’t in any reliable sources that I’ve seen. Drdpw (talk) 21:12, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

head of state and head of govt?

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

it's sort of annoying to describe the US President as the head of state and the head of government, when those are not concepts that we have in Amercia. We have an executive branch (which the president is head of), a court branch, and a bicameral legislative branch, and furthermore a federal system. That other countries separate the roles of head of state and head of government is the thing that needs explaining; it's not at all explanatory of what the president is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.118.87 (talk) 17:07, 27 December 2019 (UTC)‎

The U.S. President is the Head of State and Government, Leader of the Executive Branch and Commander-in-chief of the U.S. military. -- Sleyece (talk) 02:33, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Acting presidents

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Would anybody be oppose to a very short section at the bottom (under Subsequent public office) that both lists them and explains why acting presidents aren't included on the list? --Jrcraft Yt (talk) 02:13, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

It is enough that there is a link to Acting president of the United States in the See also section. Drdpw (talk) 02:39, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Minor error with Nixon

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The 1968 election should show until midway through the Nixon presidency. Altanner1991 (talk) 04:15, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

True, but difficult to accomplish due to Agnew being reelected but resigning mid-2nd term. I can tinker with it a bit. Drdpw (talk) 04:23, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_presidents_of_the_United_States/Archive_13&oldid=1136949417"