Talk:List of presidents of the United States

Suggested improvements

I think the VP party color column has a couple of problems

1. It is not labeled
2. It is not accessible
3. Its location is not consistent with the location of the POTUS party column

After thinking about this for a while, I came up with the following suggestions for reorganizing the columns:

• Header (colspan=3): President (or "Presidency"?)
  • col 1: number
  • col 2: portrait
  • col 3: name, born/died/age/footnotes
• Header (colspan=2): Party
  • col 4: party color
  • col 5: party name
• Header (colspan=2): Term & election
  • col 6: from/to dates
  • col 7: term # & election year
• Header (colspan=1): Previous office
  • col 8: name of office, dates
• Header (colspan=2): Vice President & Party
  • col 9: name (with from/to dates when needed)
  • col 10: party color

strikeout indicates parts of this proposal I've withdrawn following Spartan7W's helpful comments below. YBG (talk) 23:46, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

The advantages and disadvantages of this include

+ party color is immediately right of both the President's name and the VP's

+ 'term of office' and term number are adjacent

– but there may be difficulties in keeping other similar tables organized consistently

Other things I think would be helpful

• Move the footnote re numbering (the 22/24 thing) from "term" to "presidency" since it relates to the Presidency number, not the term number
• For accessibility reasons, include party {{abbrev}} in the VP party color column. The current arrangement violates the accessibility principle color should never be the only method of communicating information. The problem of text visibility can be resolved by carefully selecting the text color, but IMO, this should be done even without using alternate text colors.
• Remove the parens from the election years. I'm not sure what they add
• Change GW's election year from 1789 to 1788. Yea, the election period spanned the New Year, but it started in 1788, so why not make it consistent with the others?

Comments? YBG (talk) 20:38, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

For VP party, in those cases (under Washington, Adams, and Lincoln) where the VP differed from the President, we could note that by placing a letter after the name: John Adams (F), like they do on TV. That way we keep out the clutter of labeling each individual VP's party, and add a secondary footnote to each to describe why said VP's party differed.

·For the parenthesis, because a term begins the year after the election (save for 1789), the parenthesis subtly hint that that election preceded and defined that term of the office, rather than started it.   Spartan7W §   22:51, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

That is a brilliant way of resolving the VP color issue! Thanks! YBG (talk) 23:10, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I still think some of the other reorganization would be helpful -- to move the term and term number together, and to move the party color and party together. I have marked up the above table accordingly. YBG (talk) 23:46, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Changed the “Term” column to “Election” because the dates in the column refer specifically with the presidential election rather than to the four year term of a president.
Changed the “Term of office” to “Presidency” because dates in the column refer to each president’s presidency, which may (and many times have) encompass more than one term.
Changed the 1st presidential election year to “1788-89” as “1789” was inaccurate (as would “1788” alone). Unsure the election years need to be in parentheses, but left them so.
Delinked the table headings “President” and “Vice President”, as the terms are linked to earlier in the article.
Also fine-tuned the note regarding George Washington’s inauguration & first term length, more informative. Drdpw (talk) 01:18, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, those are good changes.

As discussed above, I've removed the VP party color column. But instead of just using a parenthesized abbreviation like (F), I've used a color legend and the full party name. There seemed to be plenty of room. I'm not sure about how I formatted the D/NU for Andrew Johnson, so if anyone thinks they can improve it, please do!

I would still like to move the POTUS party color column to be adjacent to the party column. Any objections? YBG (talk) 04:11, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Concur w/your idea of moving the POTUS party color column to the other side of the presidency column and adjacent to the party column.

List looks fine w/o the VP party color column. However, the VP party boxes looked a bit awkward, given that only 3 of 47 VPs needed them; so I've removed them and replaced them with notes to show that these particular VPs were each of a different political party than the POTUS they served under.

I merged the separate notes for "Died in office", "Death by natural causes", and "Assassinated" into one - "Died in office" as this seems simpler and remains accurate.

I cut the notations for presidents who "Sought an election for a full term, but were unsuccessful" and who "Later sought election or re-election to a non-consecutive term" because these facts, while interesting, are of secondary importance (even trivial perhaps). Drdpw (talk) 08:26, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I liked the VP party color boxes because they stood out and you could easily find the exceptions to the rule. But if you want to remove them, that's fine, but it would be good to include a parenthesized party abbreviation before the footnote.

I'd go a different direction with some of the footnotes. I'd completely eliminate some of the footnotes and put small text stating "died in office", "assassinated" or "resigned" for all of the cases where a term of office (POTUS or VP) ends early. Don't need one VP promoted to POTUS as it is obvious in context.

I liked the notes about those who unsuccessfully sought to extend their presidency, I can live without it. I think it would be useful information in a column about after their Presidency -- so you could see that JQA served in the House after his Presidency and TR tried but failed to get elected a different Party banner. But I'd stop well short of including info about other non-official duties.

YBG (talk) 00:14, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Since realigning the VP column the other evening, I have, removed unnecessary "br/" mark-ups; included (restored) full VP service dates where they differed from the presidential dates of service (including dates for when the office of the VP was vacant); and moved links from the numbers column that were all but hidden thanks to the forced "#000" text color and thus pretty useless to the "see also" section, and so improved their visibility and usefulness. I also contemplated following through on YBG's comment above about completely eliminating some of the footnotes and putting small text stating "died in office", "assassinated" or "resigned" for all of the cases where a term of office (POTUS or VP) ends early, but did not. I do like that idea. Drdpw (talk) 03:13, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

The <br/> mark-ups are not unnecessary at all. They should be returned, there was no consensus to remove them whatsoever. The full dates for the Vice Presidents are also quite superflous. What exactly is wrong with noting that VP Rockefeller "(Began: December 19, 1974)". Most readers would understand that he ended his term on the same day Ford ended his. Why you are so intent on complicating and cluttering the table is quite simply beyond me.--Neve–selbert 03:54, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

arbitrary break in suggested improvements

Spartan7W, YBG: As things are deteriorating into an edit war between myself & Neve-selbert, I am disengaging and would ask you both to intervene and help me, and perhaps Neve-selbert also, to see our dueling edits (attempts to enhance this list) with fresh eyes. Thanks. Drdpw (talk) 04:15, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I am away from the machine I edit on. I will review and figure things out when I return Wednesday. Mistakes were made removing the party coloration from VPs, and requires going back to previous versions to re-do this fix.   Spartan7W §   04:23, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I did the other day when I addressed the issue GoodDay raised about the alignment of George Clinton. I went back to the last version w/the color column for VPs and erased the color by using "colspan=2" for the entire list (theremay have been a better way, but I'm no wikimarkup wiz, and that seemed simplist to me). Drdpw (talk) 04:37, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

@Spartan7W: For the Vice Presidents, I did rework the dates for when each left office, noting whether or not they had died, resigned, etc. Drdpw was against the changes without sound reason, so I just wondered whether or not you think these changes were suitably cleaner and more compact and consistent with the (Lived: 81 years) in the President column:

Republican
President			Presidency	Party		Election	Previous service	Vice President
37		Richard Nixon 1913–1994 (Lived: 81 years)	January 20, 1969 – August 9, 1974		Republican	46 (1968)	36th Vice President of the United States (1953–61)	Spiro Agnew (Resigned: October 10, 1973)
						47 (1972)
								Office vacant
								Gerald Ford (Began: December 6, 1973)
38		Gerald Ford 1913–2006 (Lived: 93 years)	August 9, 1974 – January 20, 1977		Republican		40th Vice President of the United States	Office vacant
								Nelson Rockefeller (Began: December 19, 1974)

Instead of the rather clunky December 19, 1974 – January 20, 1977 I replaced it with the simpler and rather more straightforward (Began: December 19, 1974) instead. Most readers would know already that Rockefeller's term in office ended when Carter came to power alongside Mondale, hence why Mondale is situated solely beside 39's column and not row-spanning from #38.--Neve–selbert 19:56, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

The long-standing (past 500+ edits over 3+ years) consensus dating format for VPs who did not serve the same term length as the POTUS they served under has been Month Day, Year – Month Day, Year, which matches the dating format for each individual presidency. I'm not seeing the article as much cleaner or more compact formatting the VP column as Neve-selbert proposes. Nor am I seeing a "clunky" problem with the way the dates are presently formatted. For these reasons I prefer the more informative status quo over the truncating change suggested. One final note on this, while Neve-selbert's proposal may make the column consistent with the format of the President column, that's an "apples to oranges" comparison. The "apples to apples" comparison is with the Presidency column, and the VP column has long been consistent with the Presidency column. Drdpw (talk) 21:44, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I would note that in the Presidency column Drdpw refers to there is a line break before & after the en dash, whereas in the Vice President column there is no break, hence a slight inconsistency.--Neve–selbert 22:00, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: My comment below and Drdpw's response, are moved here instead of the previous section where I mistakenly put my comment. YBG (talk) 00:30, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

For what its worth, I prefer the minimalist form that only includes VP begin/end dates when they differ from that of the POTUS. But I haven't thought through how that style decision might impact what we'd like to do with the VP list. YBG (talk) 23:37, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I concur; the column is presently formatted that way. Drdpw (talk) 00:19, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

What I actually meant was that I preferred the form that only included the date(s) that are different. I especially like the fact that 'resigned' or 'died' can eliminate the need for a footnote. However, I am fine with the current state of the article, which lists both begin and end dates when either one differs from the POTUS dates. But I would like to see a brief 'died' or 'resigned' to be inserted as appropriate. YBG (talk) 00:34, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

That would work, and cut down on the number of notes in the process. Drdpw (talk) 00:43, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I have changed "died in office" and "resigned from office" to in-cell notes (rather than efn-notes). When doing tis, I linked the "died in office" note for the 4 assassinated presidents to their respective assassination articles. Drdpw (talk) 23:50, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, that is much better. But I think the nearly-full-width hr is a bit confusing - it looks too much like a new cell. In the VP column, the note could be removed by changing the "Office vacant" comments to "Vacant (by death/resignation/ascension)". This would have the added advantage of eliminating the white space above and below Madison's pic. (Poor man! Couldn't seem to find a VP would could go the distance.) Of course, this technique doesn't work in the POTUS column, but as I say, the problem isn't as bad there. But even there, I'd prefer a half-width hr, though I'm not sure how to do that. Or maybe eliminate the hr and just put the note in parens. YBG (talk) 06:26, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Another comment. Now that the party color is adjacent to the party name, I'm not sure there is any need for the party color legend in the header - unless we want to add a count like in the VP list, though I don't really care for that. YBG (talk) 06:26, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Tried changing the "Office vacant" comments to "Vacant (by death/resignation/ascension)". It didn't eliminate the white space around JM's pic. I think that only a differently cropped image will accomplish that. I did change several Office Vacant dates to "(Balance of term)", in an effort to break-up the wall of dates in that column. ADDENDUM, another possibility would be to change the wording for pre-XXV Amendment vacancies to, (Office vacant balance of term).
RE the party color legend in the header, having it there and with links to parties means that the wikilinks up&down the Party column can be removed. Actually, there's a problem with WP:OVERLINK & WP:SEAOFBLUE throughout the table. Drdpw (talk) 20:13, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Keep in mind that MOS:DUPLINK specifically mentions repeating links in a table when it would be helpful to the reader. Our readers may well be in the middle of this table and start to wonder What's a Whig or What's the difference between the Democratic and Democratic-Republican parties or between the Republican and National Republican parties. Such readers are ill-served by having to navigate to the top of a huge table. YBG (talk) 00:11, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Question

Question, why are the presidents' dates in office formatted as they are?

January 20, 2017 – January 20, 2021

rather than

January 20, 2017 – January 20, 2021

Drdpw (talk) 15:53, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Convention, it seems. See List of British monarchs.--Neve–selbert 02:32, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Recent photos of living former presidents

Also, for former presidents, I see no injury done by including recent photographs of them. Each has aged considerably since their portrait; Carter is 35 years older, Bush 41 is 23 years older, and Clinton and Bush 43 are each in their 70s now (or practically) and are considerably older in appearance. Showing what each looks like in the last few years is a nice added bonus. Including their name is logical, especially for accessibility, and they few characters it takes to list their term of office and age does not harm.   Spartan7W §   22:56, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree. I support re-adding recent photos of the living former presidents. I suggest putting the photos and brief bio data in a table, 1st row the photos, 2nd row the data. No need for a wikitable. YBG (talk) 23:10, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I would go so far as to say that the article is much better with the recent photographs than it is without. I think we should reach a consensus here. YBG (talk) 23:20, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I think the article is fine w/o the aged former presidents' pictures. So what if they're more recent then the ones in the main list, the former presidents listing is just a few lines below, making separate photos redundant. While there's "no injury" in having the recent photos included, w/a group picture right there we can tell that they've aged since leaving office (lest there be any doubt that they had). The images are, quite simply, extraneous. Drdpw (talk) 23:51, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

I absolutely concur with Drdpw. Having first dismissed his arguments myself, I soon reconsidered and indeed, including four separate images for each and every living former president that already has an image in the above table is rather a superfluous concept—a paragraph/table would give away the information about the living former POTUS just as well as any gallery could. No injury done perhaps otherwise. But, perhaps the reverse could be asked: is there injury done by not including the gallery? I would seriously doubt that. The former US presidents have aged indeed, but none have attempted any sort of surgical face reshaping; my point is, most can still identify them. By all means, decorate the table if you like or even give it an aesthetic redesign of some sorts. I urge you to reconsider returning the gallery. Besides, when President Obama leaves office next year the images will no longer be consistent, given that Obama is unlikely to age considerably just days after leaving office and the fact that we will have to wait for Spartan himself to take a .tif image of the soon-to-be former president with the exact same height-width dimensions to match the others.--Neve–selbert 13:15, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I still like seeing recent pictures of the living former presidents. As an alternative, the pic from GWB's library dedication could be cropped and enlarged so you could actually see the faces. YBG (talk) 23:58, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

All I ask for is consistency, here & at List of Vice Presidents of the United States. -- GoodDay (talk) 09:35, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Agree; the VP page will/does need major updating so that it remains consistent with this page. Drdpw (talk) 20:48, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

George Clinton

Anyone know how to correct Clinton's position in the article? his second term as Veep, should be under Pres Madison. GoodDay (talk) 21:34, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: The "row span" problem extends to the placement of John Calhoun and the vacancy created when he resigned in 12/1832. Drdpw (talk) 21:43, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

@GoodDay: I found when the error entered the page - The August 8, 2016 edit in which the VP party color column was removed. I will work on realigning the VP column this evening or tomorrow (Saturday). Drdpw (talk) 22:41, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

I have realigned the VP column. When doing so, I ended up separating the terms that G. Clinton & J. Calhoun served under separate presidents, thus showing that they served a full term and then, after an election, served a partial term under a different president. While working on this, I also added the dates of office for all VPs where they were missing, plus a note about the delayed start of J. Adams' 1st term. Drdpw (talk) 05:11, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Calidum ¤ 05:22, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! I believe I was probably the one that introduced the error. Thanks for noticing and thanks for fixing! This is what collaboration is all about! YBG (talk) 23:35, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

List of VPs article table

Several comments have been made on this page about the desire for formatting consistency between the List of Presidents of the United States table and one at List of Vice Presidents of the United States. I’ve been working refining the VP table so that the formatting is similar, and would appreciate input before I post it. Please, take a look at it in my sandbox, and leave any comments about it at the List of Vice Presidents of the United States talk page. Thanks. Drdpw (talk) 23:48, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I'd appreciate some more input on the VP list reformatting proposal before I go forward with its implementation. Please, take a look and then share your observations or suggestions. Thanks. Drdpw (talk) 22:35, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

@Drdpw: Very good, so far. If you need a hand with the reformatting, I wouldn't hesitate.--Neve–selbert 10:41, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

The VP article reformatting has been completed. I have reordered the columns in this article to match the VP article. There may be other reformatting that needs to be done to make the articles match. YBG (talk) 03:04, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 September 2016

The fact that Clinton was impeached from office is not noted; however, the fact that Nixon resigned from office was included. Are you trying to distort history? 172.249.82.36 (talk) 17:55, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

You are correct, the fact that B. Clinton was impeached is not noted, and neither is the fact that A Johnson was impeached as well. The reason neither is noted is that neither impeachment resulted in removal from office. Had either been removed from office by the U.S. Senate, their term would have ended, and that would be noted. No one is trying to distort history here, as impeachment does not end a president's term, and is thus not germane. Hope this explanation helps. For more details on the topic, see Impeachment in the United States. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 18:16, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Presidents that did not win a majority of the states

The article lists the 4 presidents that won the election but lost the popular vote. For completeness and to prevent bias, it should also list the 3 presidents (Carter, Kennedy and JQ Adams) that won the election but did not carry a majority of the states. The two ties (Garfield and Taylor) could also be noted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.214.115.237 (talk) 18:17, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Since the number of states won has no bearing on being elected, I don't see how this improves the completeness or removes any bias of the article. I also don't think we need to include every little election nuance - which sounds more like WP:TRIVIA. Popular vote is at least indirectly related to winning the election, and a listed president who lost the popular vote may require explanation for those not familiar with the Electoral College. Hoof Hearted (talk) 19:50, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

The number of states has just as much bearing as does the popular vote (that is not really much), as the electoral votes are a combination of the number of senators (state based) and congressmen (population based). I see now that this entire section has been eliminated, and that makes sense, as both of these are just trivia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.214.115.237 (talk) 16:27, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

White House photo

In all these years, I had not seen (or known about) this article before. The table is very well done; one of the best I've seen. However, the lead section is a different story, and one of the main things is the image of the White House. What would be a good reason to have it in this article? We all know that the president lives in the White House, and we all know what it looks like. Per MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE, a lead image "must be significant and relevant in the topic's context", not just related. An image is not required for a lead, and this one certainly doesn't need two. And if an image needs such a long caption, that means that it shouldn't be a lead image, because the lead image needs little-to-no captioning (WP:Manual of Style/Captions#Infoboxes and leading images). Also, this lead is too long as it is. A lead should be no longer than four paragraphs (WP:LEAD), and this is a list article, so there shouldn't be much prose. The lead should just be long enough to adequately explain the following list. And the image just makes the section even longer. —Musdan77 (talk) 18:27, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

I would recommend having a portrait of President Obama replacing the image of the White House, similar to the situation at List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom with Prime Minister May. I agree that the White House image should be moved elsewhere, yes.--Nevé–selbert 20:01, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your input Musdan77. I concur with your observation about the White House image; that and the seal have always seemed a bit out of place tome as well. I have just replaced both images with the Politics of the United States of America series sidebar. Such sidebars are widely used (more so then images) in list articles. I have also trimmed (rearranged text in) the introduction, as you suggested, though probably not to the degree you might have envisioned. So, to you, and to others I ask, "what else should be trimmed?" and "what should not have been trimmed?" Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 20:23, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Drdpw. I don't know about anyone else, but the changes you made to the lead look fine to me. Sure, I think more could be trimmed, but it's better than it was. —Musdan77 (talk) 04:47, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Presidentiad

Presidentiad, which redirects to this page, is a term used by Walt Whitman to refer to Lincoln's 1861-65 term in the poem Year of Meteors, 1859-60, apparently a reference to the 1860 Great Meteor. Maybe we could use this term in the column header instead of "election". YBG (talk) 08:19, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Technically, presidentiad could be used in place of presidency (see Games of the XXXI Olympiad). That said, I'm not in favor of using it. The word was nothing more then a poetic term coined by Whitman, and is rarely used, a google search shows, by anyone, except when discussing that particular Whitman work. The vast majority of readers would question (some with "colorful metaphors" perhaps) why we're using this word. Drdpw (talk) 09:25, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Yea, I agree. But I found the word interesting enough that I felt compelled to use it someplace. Better on TP than in an article. YBG (talk) 19:39, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Democratic party color

Why this article shows ligth blue color for democrats while the main article (of democratic party) shows dark blue? I think we should replace ligth blue with dark blue, as it was before.--Elelch (talk) 21:41, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Elelch, there has been some debate about what color to use for the U.S. Democratic Party on this page and it has changed a couple times over the past year or so. The current Democratic Party meta color ( ) is used on the List of Vice Presidents of the United States, List of Presidents pro tempore of the United States Senate, and List of Speakers of the United States House of Representatives pages, plus those of most U.S. State Governors, except where a few have been bold and changed the color to ( ).

On the VP, PPt, & Speaker list pages I made the decision to go with the Democratic Party meta color when I recently made some formatting changes. When I did, I put this note on the respective talk page:

In the "party color" column I chose to use the current Democratic Party meta color ( ) rather than the color currently used in the "party color" column for presidents on the presidents list page ( ). I did so because   is the status quo meta color. There is currently a discussion at Template talk:Democratic Party (United States)/meta/color#Rfc: #3333FF or #34AAE0 on which color should be used as the meta color for the U.S. Democratic Party. Please join that discussion if you wish to express your view on this topic.

I've refrained from making the change back to the meta color on this list page, out of respect for those promoting the new DNC shade of blue; but the question remains, "why this page is different?" In the final anaylsis, this page shouldn't be, change the so I'll change it back one more time, and, because the color issue goes beyond this page, I urge the watchers of this and other similar pages, to please join the discussion concerning which color should be used as the meta color for the U.S. Democratic Party at Template talk:Democratic Party (United States)/meta/color#Rfc: #3333FF or #34AAE0 if you wish to express your view on this topic. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 23:24, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

UPDATE: I just visited the discussion over on the meta color template talk page, and discovered that the discussion has ended, and that the clear consensus is for the color to remain as #3333FF, the most common argument being that we're using colors to make our pages easier to read, not necessarily to reflect the parties' official colors. So, I've gone ahead and changed the color on this list for Democrats back to #3333FF. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 23:56, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Agree. The current meta color ( ) is also the most used in the media to identify democratic party, so people is widely accustomed to it.--Elelch (talk) 17:13, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

1788-89

Question: In the 'Election' column, how should the dates of the first Presidential election be written?

1. 1788–1789
2. 1788–89
3. 1788
4. 1789

Arguments could be made for each of these, but I tend to prefer 1 or 2 because 3 and 4 don't really tell the full story. But which should we use, 1 or 2? Looking at MOS:DATERANGE, it says that "the range's end year is usually given in full", but then it goes on to add:

The ending year in a range may be abbreviated to two digits (1881–82, but never 1881–882 or 1881–2) in the case of two consecutive years, or in infoboxes and tables where space is at a premium. (Use a single format consistently in any given table column, both for aesthetic reasons and so that data sorts properly.)

This says that we may use the "1788–89" in either of two situations (a) when the two years are consecutive or (b) in infoboxes or tables. The MOS does not require us to use "1788–89", but allows us to choose between "1788–1789" and "1788–89" if either of these conditions applies. In this case, both conditions apply and so we certainly are allowed to use either format. And given this choice, I prefer "1788–89" to conserve space. If we use "1788–1789", that forces the column to be wider. It isn't a lot wider, but it is wider, and every little bit helps in a wide table such as this one. YBG (talk) 05:26, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

#3 or 4 would be something to consider. A note can be added, explaining how the election ended the previous/following year.--Nevé–selbert 19:27, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I implemented option #2 (1788-89). -- GoodDay (talk) 19:44, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

GoodDay, granted this is a small issue, and either XXXX–XXXY or XXXX–XY works for me, I wish you hadn't circumvented the discussion YBG started by implementing option #2. That said, the use of 1788–89 is fine by me. Drdpw (talk) 20:38, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Ya may change it to 1788 or whichever ya'll prefer. No biggy with me :) GoodDay (talk) 20:51, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

We should aim to be consistent here. If we go about #2, we should aim to go about implementing this format with the entire table. It just looks inconsistent otherwise.--Nevé–selbert 19:53, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

For consecutive years, perhaps (1862–63), but not for non-consecutive years (1862–1867). Drdpw (talk) 20:38, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I think consistency within a column is the most important thing here, and this is the only year range in this column. I agree with Drdwp that we should only use yyyy-yy for consecutive years. Although there are a few consecutive years in other columns, for the most part they are 4- or 8-year ranges, and I think it is better to be consistent within those columns. YBG (talk) 23:58, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Lincoln/Johnson party color

The second term of Abraham Lincoln, and the only term of Andrew Johnson, should be colored separately to denote that they were in the National Union Party at that time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sleyece (talk • contribs) 18:13, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Done Drdpw (talk) 02:29, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Layout for the president-elect

Hello all. Below is my attempt at a consensus for the table's layout, when the president-elect is known come November. Opinions are, of course, very welcome.

Democratic
President		Previous service	Presidency		Party		Election	Vice President
	Hillary Clinton Born 1947 (76 years old)	67th United States Secretary of State (2009–2013)	45	January 20, 2017 – Elect	style="background-color:Template:Democratic Party (United States)/meta/color" |	Democratic	58 (2016)	Tim Kaine

Republican
President		Previous service	Presidency		Party		Election	Vice President
	Donald Trump Born 1946 (78 years old)	None	45	January 20, 2017 – Elect	style="background-color:Template:Republican Party (United States)/meta/color" |	Republican	58 (2016)	Mike Pence

--Nevé–selbert 22:55, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for broaching the subject Nevé; looks like there was much edit-warring and talk page discussion about this 8 years ago. It would definitely be wonderful to have less tumult this time. The archived discussion from then can be found HERE. Once the editing/reverting died down in early Dec. '08, the consensus was to separate President-elect Obama from the main Presidents list. He had his own section titled President–elect (10:37 January 8, 2009 version HERE). This would, IMO, be a good precedent to follow come November 9, after a winner has clearly been determined and kept with until after the new President has been sworn into office on January 20.

Here are a couple suggested tweaks for your table design.
A) change the 1st column heading from "President" to "President-elect"; and
B) rather then "January 20, 2017 <br> Elect", state, "Inauguration <br> scheduled: <br> January 20, 2017".

Cheers! Drdpw (talk) 01:00, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I prefer having a separate section for the President and Vice President elect. It seems the best way to add the new information while at the same time keeping it clearly separate from the existing information. But the one-row table should have the same format as the existing table. YBG (talk) 04:27, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

YBG, I do too, especially given the 2008 precedent. Question, by same format, do ayou mean the same but with appropriate labeling and information differences, like those I've described above (otherwise we'll get mired in the "s/he's not president yet" quagmire)? Drdpw (talk) 06:20, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Drdpw, absolutely agree. YBG (talk) 15:19, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

@Drdpw and YBG: Thanks for the feedback. I've attempted a draft of Mrs Clinton, come November, below. (I'm having trouble trying to get the width of the table to match that of the main #List of presidents section, though. The width of the party background-color is thinner, for some reason.) I also think we should add {{TOC limit}} to the article (to hide this subsection in the Table of Contents).--Nevé–selbert 21:35, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

First draft

President-elect See also: Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016; Inauguration of Hillary Clinton; Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016; and Inauguration of Donald Trump President-elect Previous service Incoming presidency Party Election Vice president–elect If Clinton should be elected ... Hillary Clinton Born 1947 (76 years old) 67th United States Secretary of State (2009–2013) 45 -2730 days until Inauguration Day January 20, 2017 style="background-color:Template:Democratic Party (United States)/meta/color" | Democratic 58 (2016) Tim Kaine If Trump should be elected ... Donald Trump Born 1946 (78 years old) None 45 -2730 days until Inauguration Day January 20, 2017 style="background-color:Template:Republican Party (United States)/meta/color" | Republican 58 (2016) Mike Pence

@Neve-selbert: Nice job, thanks. I'd suggest a smaller picture size, though. Can you amend accordingly? — JFG ^talk 16:33, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Further discussion

I've filled out the other alternative. I think the modified column headers are very helpful. YBG (talk) 22:20, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I should have made another again for Donald Trump, but the very thought of him winning makes my stomach churn.--Nevé–selbert 22:25, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

@YBG: Is there any way the width of the columns could be modified, in order to match the dimensions of the #List of presidents table?--Nevé–selbert 23:43, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Column widths can be forced, I've done it in tables on various pages in the past. It could certainly be done for this President-elect section. On the other hand, this section is a temporary one and will exist for only 10 weeks. Drdpw (talk) 00:18, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Actually the best thing would be to insert the incoming 45th Prez & incoming 48th Vice Prez, in the way we've been insirting incoming officials in these list articles, these last few years. We've always handled the dates of service in a way that shows the lame-ducks as still in office, 'til the next inauguration. For Clinton or Trump, add them as though they're already in office, except leave Incumbent in Obama's box & then have the inauguration date for Clinton or Trump, as well as '45', written in italics. GoodDay (talk) 00:37, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I like GoodDay's idea, although there is precedent for a new section for the president-elect. Personally, I believe that forcing the column widths is imperative. Drdpw argues that the section is only temporary and will exist just for 10 weeks. I would agree to differ, many readers and editors alike in the future may want to have a look back at how we formatted Clinton or Trump in 2016, in order for them to go about the right layout for the 46th President in the next four or eight years, just like we have done looking back to how editors in 2008 managed. We should aim to set an example.--Nevé–selbert 22:40, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I'll play with it and get the cell widths to match. Drdpw (talk) 23:37, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I like the idea of thinking forward and trying to set the best precedent possible. Unfortunately, anything that is done now to make the widths match in two separate tables would not be able to be easily followed in four or eight years unless the current format were to remain unchanged in the mean time. Fat chance of that! That is to say, if you specify the column percentages, those percentages would not be valid unless no one changed the format over the course of four/eight years.

I think the only way to guarantee the column widths match in an easily followed manner would be to have the president-elect be in the same table, which I think would be problematic. Although it may be possible to have them actually in the same table with the mere illusion of being in separate tables.

Personally, I don't see much benefit to having column widths match; it comes in a distant 5th after (1) clearly labeling the POTUS/VP-elects as such; (2) keeping them clearly separate from the (lame duck) incumbents and (3) setting a good precedent for the future and (4) making that precedent easy-to-follow. But if the consensus is to force the column widths to match identically, I'd be willing to help figure out the best way to do that. YBG (talk) 02:19, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I've figured out how to keep them separate and yet force the column widths to match in the sandbox. I put the ===President-elect=== header inside a |colspan=9 cell with the borders set up so that it looks like a completely separate table even though it is not. In the examples, I only included the main table headers and the Obama rows. Notice that the table widths are not the same. This is because the able widths are determined by all rows in the table, even the President-elect row. The width of the previous service column is determined by the Clinton row in one case and by the Obama row in the other case. YBG (talk) 04:18, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Ya'll won't have trouble with any width, if yas follow what I'm suggesting & merely add (Clinton or Trump) onto the rest of the list. Just write in their 'Presidency' column "Taking office January 20, 2017", while leaving Incumbent in Obama's 'Presidency' column. GoodDay (talk) 13:00, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

If, as GoodDay suggests, we add (Clinton or Trump) to the existing list on November 9, perhaps the POTUS-elect could be separated from the current & past PsOTUS by inserting a header row between Obama and POTUS-45,like this:

President–elect		Current service	Presidency		Party		Election	Vice President–elect

Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 21:59, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't honestly see the need to split Obama's would-be-successor from the list, while that person waits to be inaugurated. We don't do this for any of the US state governors & lieutenant governors. GoodDay (talk) 22:05, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Because, based on past history (11/2008), unless there's some separation between the POTUS-elect and the current & past PsOTUS, there will be multiple contentious edits following the election made by people proclaiming "s/he's not president yet!" Drdpw (talk) 22:16, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, as long yas make sure to do the same type of addition at List of Vice Presidents of the United States (i.e. VP-elect) as here. Then, I reckon there's no problem. GoodDay (talk) 22:57, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Alternative draft

I have now attempted another draft. Also, I am inclined to agree that the lists should indeed be separated. @Drdpw and YBG: What do you think? (Note: The width of the #Incoming president table will be matched automatically to the #List of presidents list. I would also recommend the subsection being hidden from the Table of Contents by virtue of {{TOC limit}}.)--Nevé–selbert 22:15, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Second draft

If Clinton should be elected ... George W. Bush Born 1946 (78 years old) 46th Governor of Texas (1995–2000) 43 January 20, 2001 – January 20, 2009 rowspan=2 style="background-color:Template:Republican Party (United States)/meta/color" | Republican 54 (2000) Dick Cheney 55 (2004) Barack Obama Born 1961 (62 years old) U.S. Senator (Class 3) from Illinois (2005–2008) 44 January 20, 2009 – Incumbent rowspan=2 style="background-color:Template:Democratic Party (United States)/meta/color" | Democratic 56 (2008) Joe Biden 57 (2012) Incoming presidency Further information: Planned presidential transition of Hillary Clinton President-elect Previous service Presidency Party Election Vice president–elect Hillary Clinton Born 1947 (76 years old) 67th United States Secretary of State (2009–2013) 45 Begins on January 20, 2017 (−2,730 days from now) style="background-color:Template:Democratic Party (United States)/meta/color" | Democratic 58 (2016) Tim Kaine If Trump should be elected ... George W. Bush Born 1946 (78 years old) 46th Governor of Texas (1995–2000) 43 January 20, 2001 – January 20, 2009 rowspan=2 style="background-color:Template:Republican Party (United States)/meta/color" | Republican 54 (2000) Dick Cheney 55 (2004) Barack Obama Born 1961 (62 years old) U.S. Senator (Class 3) from Illinois (2005–2008) 44 January 20, 2009 – Incumbent rowspan=2 style="background-color:Template:Democratic Party (United States)/meta/color" | Democratic 56 (2008) Joe Biden 57 (2012) Incoming presidency Further information: Planned presidential transition of Donald Trump President-elect Previous service Presidency Party Election Vice president–elect Donald Trump Born 1946 (78 years old) No elected office 45 Begins on January 20, 2017 (−2,730 days from now) style="background-color:Template:Republican Party (United States)/meta/color" | Republican 58 (2016) Mike Pence References

Looks great! And you get full marks for not duplicating the error in my sandbox example. Plus, extra credit for wrapping it all in multiple {{cot}}/{{cob}}! YBG (talk) 23:03, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Might be nice to list days until inauguration day ... right now it is showing 2 months even though it is closer to 3 months. YBG (talk) 23:06, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

@YBG: Come 22 November 2016, the days will be shown. It's just the way the {{Days from now}} template works. It only shows months until 60 days before.--Nevé–selbert 23:44, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I've fixed this by changing from {{Days from now}} to {{Age in days}}. YBG (talk) 04:14, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I'd personally go with the way it's done at the governors & lieutenant governors lists. But, if keeping the incoming prez slightly apart from the incumbent & the others, helps avoid edit wars between Nov 8, 2016 & Jan 20, 2017? then so be it. Just be sure whatever style is adopted here; is also adopted at the VP list article. GoodDay (talk) 23:10, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Support – Thanks! — JFG ^talk 09:28, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Well done Nevé; just a couple cosmetic refinements to put forward: A) Rather then using the template "See also:Inauguration of (name)", link the "Inauguration of" page to "Inauguration Day" in the 2nd "Incoming presidency" cell, giving that cell a specific link rather then one to the general "presidential inauguration" article; B) Italicize the number "45" in the 1st "Incoming presidency" cell to further identify it as something that has not yet begun. See how these look in the Second draft above. Drdpw (talk) 01:29, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Made a few tweaks: added (36) and italicised this instead (frankly, having "45" in italics appears rather awkward and inconsistent vis-à-vis the above table). I also added (Lame duck) for outgoing President Obama's "Presidency" column.--Nevé–selbert 20:29, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

The table was fine the way it was; it doesn't need any more links. This brief table is beginning to resemble a link farm. The "lame duck" link is of secondary importance and little more than clutter. The (36) is also clutter and of secondary importance. It also links to the "President-elect of the US" article, which is already linked-to in the column heading. The "see also" link to "United States presidential inauguration" is unnecessary, as there's a link to the (yet to be written) "Inauguration of ..." article, which will no doubt link to the broader term. Now, we could remove the "Inauguration of ..." link (leaving it out until an article is actually written & closer to the inauguration) and replace it with a link to the "presidential inauguration" article. either would work for me.
Plesase It's a clear, clean, and concise table without the latest additions. Drdpw (talk) 21:58, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I think referring to WP:LINKFARM is a huge exaggeration. Noting that Obama is a lame-duck is neither harmful nor distracting, but merely clarifies further as to his incumbency status. Noting that Clinton (or Trump) is/will be the 36th president-elect is also useful information, indeed. However I would be inclined to remove the link (making it (36) instead) but removing the info altogether I just think is unhelpful. The layout will only stand for a couple of months, anyway.--Nevé–selbert 22:27, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

@YBG and JFG: Hello again. What do you think of this slightly new layout, including (Lame duck) for Obama's column and adding (36) with an Efn note?--Nevé–selbert 22:45, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: @Drdpw: I'll revert the changes to the draft in due course, but I just want to see what others think as well.--Nevé–selbert 22:45, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Ya, my "link farm" reference was a leap too far. I just don't want to see this useful little table filled with tangential and redundant information. Drdpw (talk) 22:56, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I think you can eliminate the (36) entirely. Either this information should be incorporated in the entire table or it should not be in the table at all. I'm not sure whether it should be in the table or not, but it clearly muddies the water by including it in the discussion of what to do about the President-elect. As for the (lame duck), I'd delete it. Or maybe just change [[Incumbent]] to [[Lame duck|Incumbent]]. YBG (talk) 22:59, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

• I've eliminated both (36) and (Lame duck). I've now added Efn notes instead.--Nevé–selbert 23:12, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

  Kill the (36) and all the footnotes; simply link "Incumbent" to Lame duck as suggested by YBG; add Trump's occupation outside of elected office directly in the table and say "No elected office" as well; link to "Inauguration of …" can be labeled just "Inauguration", otherwise the repetition of "day" is awkward. — JFG ^talk 23:23, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

  I personally can't see anything wrong with the footnotes. However I have changed "None" to "No elected office" for Trump, though.--Nevé–selbert 23:29, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

  I think the extended footnotes add unnecessary clutter without significant benefit. All information related to (36) is, IMHO, insignificant and should be canned -- unless a discussion leads to a consensus that it should be included for everyone. The significant information - i.e., incumbent still serving and president-elect not yet serving - is better included in the table itself using wikilinks (for incumbent) or dates (for not yet serving). And re Trump's experience, follow the example in other similar lists, and show the most significant service. Yea, the leading the Trump organization is private sector but the span of influence may be larger than, say, a collector of ports or an ambassador or budget director or state assemblyman, which rate mention in the VP article. YBG (talk) 06:58, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

  One more thing: I think it has been worth the trouble of having two mock-ups here instead of a single one with fake names -- some of the issues would not have been apparent without using the actual candidates. Once this has settled down a bit more, it would be good to mock up the two potential VPs-elect matching the consensus format from here. YBG (talk) 07:08, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

  Discovered that articles for the Planned presidential transition of Donald Trump and the Planned presidential transition of Hillary Clinton have been in existence for a few months now. One of them will (most likely) be renamed Presidential transition of ... in a couple weeks. I suggest that we replace the "|further=H.C/D.T presidential campaign, 2016" link with a "|further=Presidential transition of H.C./D.T." link, as the focus here is on the individual's pending ("germinating") presidency rather then their campaign for the office. Drdpw (talk) 16:32, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

• @JFG, YBG, and Drdpw: Made a few changes:
  1. Removed footnotes & added the Planned presidency of articles to {{Further information}}
  2. Changed title of subsection from Incoming president to Incoming presidency
  3. Changed title of column header from Incoming presidency to just Presidency

I also made another design tweak not really worth going into. It all seems rather straightforward now, without clutter.--Nevé–selbert 20:54, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Generally very good.

(1) Why not remove the campaign link completely?

(2) What about this?

Begins on <br> [[Inauguration of Hillary Clinton|January 20, 2017]] <br> ''({{age in days||January 20, 2017|show unit=full}} from now)''

Begins on <br> [[Inauguration of Donald Trump|January 20, 2017]] <br> ''({{age in days||January 20, 2017|show unit=full}} from now)''

Begins on <br> January 20, 2017 <br> (−2,730 days from now)

Begins on <br> January 20, 2017 <br> (−2,730 days from now)

(3) You want someone else to draft something re Trump's previous service? Still need to remove the {{efn}}

Thanks!!! YBG (talk) 21:43, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

@YBG: Done. I'm not sure what else to do with Trump (besides, he's hopefully going to lose anyway). Clinton seems ready to go.--Nevé–selbert 21:55, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

P.S. removed the campaign link.--Nevé–selbert 21:58, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I've tweaked it a bit more. If you think it needs discussion, go ahead and WP:BRD and we can go from there. YBG (talk) 22:26, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps two lines are a little too much, reduced it to one again. Restored Inauguration Day also.--Nevé–selbert 22:37, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm pleased with the way it looks now; two thumbs-up. Drdpw (talk) 22:46, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I had Inauguration day pipe-linked, but I don't mind it being out in the open. However, I do think that the phrase "Begins on" is important. YBG (talk) 01:15, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Let me clarify. IMO, either we need to say "Begins with" or the like at the beginning or else we need to have the phrase "xx days until" at the beginning. YBG (talk) 01:22, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

YBG, is this more like what you had in mind? Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 01:29, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, thanks! YBG (talk) 03:21, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

@Neve-selbert: he's hopefully going to lose anyway – You're so convinced that you kept the Trump link pointing to the hypothetical Clinton inauguration – Fixed it for you. — JFG ^talk 03:30, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

State

Wasn't there a recent discussion and consensus to eliminate the state column? Or maybe that was somewhere else. YBG (talk) 04:51, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, most recently, above, and here, and here. There are also threads in earlier archives concerning the controversy surrounding this column. I would not support restoring it, as its previous inclusion apparently generated nothing but confusion and complaints. There's also the additional width issue to consider if another column is added, plus the fact that there exists both a List of Presidents of the United States by date and place of birth and a List of Presidents of the United States by home state. Drdpw (talk) 05:38, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

VP Column

I restored |colspan=2 to the VP column header as every individual row has that same parameter. Or maybe it should be removed from every row. YBG (talk) 05:01, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't think such a parameter is necessary. @YBG: You could make a quick WP:TEST EDIT to find out.--Nevé–selbert 22:37, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Test edits would only tell us what worked for a particular browser. I think it should either be (a) in all rows (both header and body) or in no rows (neither header nor body). I was just easier to go with (a) than to do all the edits required for (b). YBG (talk) 02:22, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

OK, I removed |colspan=2 from each and every row (except the first row which had to be changed from |colspan=10 to |colspan=9). Took me about 25 minutes. YBG (talk) 02:49, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I just made the corresponding change to the VP list. And in the process, I remembered why it was 2 columns wide. At one time the VP columns on this list and the POTUS column on the VP list had a color-coded party column on every row. Then it was modified to to only include the colorbar when the party affiliations were different. Then it was eliminated entirely. As there is not much likelihood of resurrecting this, it makes sense to remove |rolspan=2 everywhere. YBG (talk) 19:11, 25 October 2016 (UTC)