Talk:List of presidents of the United States by age

Proposal

Well, basically I've made this proposal in a number of places but haven't received much feedback (although what little feedback I've received has been in support.) After the recent deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United States Presidents by longevity in which one of these lists barely survived I thought maybe it'd be good to take some preemptive steps to save this list and others. One of the things raised in the discussion was that there were just too many lists about us presidents and that users supported certain lists, but not others. I just spent some time learning how to use sortable lists and I came up with this. It combines all of the information from List of United States Presidents by longevity, List of United States presidents by age at ascension to office, List of United States Presidents by time as former president, it also includes dates of birth and death, although it would not be a good replacement for those lists, as they contain other information (place, cause, etc.). The list is fully sortable! So what do people think? If we implement this list I'm pretty sure we can prevent president lists from showing up at WP:AFD. If people like this design or would like to suggest improvements, that'd be great. --JayHenry 22:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm against either merging or removing these lists. They're ok and might be useful sometimes EPWA airport 06:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you've misunderstood my proposal. This list contains all the information in the other lists. It is simply a sortable list. So all the useful information will still be here! --JayHenry 06:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

With the ability to have sortable lists I think combining all into one table is ideal, and more useful. FancyPants 21:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Function

unfortunately, the multi-column sort is not working--it sorts only by the first column, no matter which column's sort button one presses. DGG 16:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't independently number the new sort.... but the sort itself works fine. If your issue is the wort then I think the problem may be with your PC... it works fine for me.--Dr who1975 18:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually... I did find a problem... when you sort by Length of

retirement it sorts the number from left to right, so 110 fqlls above 1010 in the sort. Tis will not work.--Dr who1975 19:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose he sort doesnlt work corretly for numeric values where there are 4 digit and 3 digit values being compared... such as "Length of retirement".... try it and you'll see what I mean.--Dr who1975 19:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah! I see what you mean on Length of retirement -- I didn't notice that but can get it fixed tomorrow. --JayHenry 05:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed that when sorting by date of death, James Monroe is out of place, ending up at the "top" (most recent) of the list. --Charlene 05:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Sort

Can everyone double check all the sort functions and take one last look at the other tables that were combined to form this one. If all is in order we can delete the redundant data and merge the text from the three other articles. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 17:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I just went through and fixed the mistakes pointed out by Dr who1975 and Charlene.fic. It looks to me like everything is sorting correctly at this point, but if there are other tweaks needed before merging, let me know! --JayHenry 21:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The "length of retirement" column doesn't sort correctly. It goes like: 0, 0, 0, 104, 625, four 1000s, 189, and then the rest. -- Jokes Free4Me (talk) 20:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

It seems like George W. Bush's value is the only one that is misordered. -- Jokes Free4Me (talk) 20:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, the reason is that for James K. Polk and Chester A. Arthur the value is static, and was manually padded with "00,", while for GWB it's dynamic and was padded only with a "0". I suggest adding "0," now, and removing it again after some 3 years, when his LoR will grow over 1k. -- Jokes Free4Me (talk) 12:44, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you should be in charge of redirecting the others into this one, and merging the text, since your the expert! --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 07:59, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh geez, I'm no expert on this, I just spent the time to figure out how to use sortable tables! I'll do this eventually, but have no particular expertise in presidential history. --JayHenry 02:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Exhibit

We've been working on a javascript tool called Exhibit for displaying structured information such as the list of presidents. Like the sortable table, used on this page, you just enter data. But Exhibit reads that data and offers a larger variety of presentations of the data, and also supports faceted browsing and sorting. You can see an example of what it looks like here. We are currently working on integrating it with mediawiki, so it can read a table out of a wiki page. Since you've worked hard on this table of presidents, I'd love your comments on the tool. Is it something you could imagine using here? Does it seem to offer benefits over the current sortable table? Does it contain any deal-breaking faults? I'd welcome comments on this page, or to karger@mit.edu --Drkarger 00:36, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the display is absolutely phenomenal! In reading through it, it's not clear to me exactly how it works. Could it take a data table like the one on this page and parse it like that? Or does it require better understanding of coding? On balance, even if it's a little more difficult to use, I'd say I'd support it because we definitely need better ways to display more complicated data sets. --JayHenry 04:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

No coding is required. Direct parsing of the wikitable is exactly the plan, and we are implementing it right now (we're also implementing a wysiwyg editor for the data in the table). And no coding is necessary---just placement of some tags similar to those you can see by looking at the html source of the example page I posted. One limitation is that a link to our rendering script has to be specified in the source page; this prevents our actually putting our demonstration inside wikipedia right now. But soon we'll have a demonstration wiki that you can visit to try editing exhibits. In the meantime, I'm happy to get any critiques of the tool or presentations.Drkarger 20:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorting errors

When the list is sorted by "age at ascension", Woodrow Wilson and Andrew Johnson appear in the wrong order. Hallpriest9 (Talk | Archive) 18:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed this. Andrew Johnson's age was given as "56y 3m 17d", Wilson's was "56y 05m 17d". Since 0 comes before 3, it was sorting Wilson's age first. I add a zero to Johnson's age and that seems to have fixed that issue. However, Wilson's age didn't seem to be correctly calculated (born 12/28/1856, took office 3/4/1913 comes out to an age at ascension of 56y 2m 4d), so I have corrected that error as well. It might be good for someone to double check the other ages as well.Cbvt (talk) 02:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

New problem: When sorted by "Length of retirement," Jimmy Carter appears to have a shorter retirement than Bill Clinton, George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan, which is obviously nonsensical. -- JCaesar (talk) 05:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe this was fixed. -- Jokes Free4Me (talk) 12:44, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

George W. Bush days in retirement does not sort correctly from least to greatest..it has him close to the bottom —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.154.122.101 (talk) 15:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

See the "Sort" section above. -- 12:44, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Truman

Harry S Truman......

no period (.) after S because he had no middle name....only a middle initial.....a period is placed after the initial only when it is the first letter of the middle name. 66.27.48.50 (talk) 21:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Graphical Representation

Lifetimes of US Presidents

I have made this image to give people as chance to see the whole list of dates as an easy graph.. I would like to know what your opinion on this image is:

• Is it appropriate, should it be used?
• Is it to big? I know it is large but getting it smaller is difficult as there is a lot of information to put in it.
• Have I made any mistakes? I know it is not holy accurate to each pixel, but if you spot any mistakes let me know.

I could do an improved version but I first would like to discuss it so I can do all improvements at once. Posted by User:Allard Friday 23 January 2009 16:56 Central European Time.

• This is a very very good graph. The information to graphic ratio is very high, which is excellent. I have not checked it for accuracy.

The reason why I came here is because I was wondering what the green bar is for. It says "Presidents of the Continental Congress." But what does that mean?

Otherwise, this is wonderfully self explanatory. You should keep it that way. Don't dare add lables or boxes or legends to clutter stuff up.-71.174.108.130 (talk) 01:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

This chart is great. Very well done. I don't think Jefferson Davis should be included, though. Also, the lines for the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are a little confusing -- they look like they refer to spans of time as opposed to single dates.Tinmanic (talk) 16:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Length of Retirement... Reverse-sort is broken

Nitpick. Its a bit odd. Sort works fine, but reverse sort is misplacing GWB's location. DavidRF (talk) 02:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

On a similar note, why can't we just replace the N/A with 0 days? It'll fit more neatly if you ask me. KarstenO (talk) 17:16, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd be fine with that. —ADavidB 10:15, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Graph from french version of the page

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:US_Presidents_Age_fr.svg?uselang=fr

Needs no real translation and is accurate until the next birthday of a living president.98.224.69.51 (talk) 10:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Constitutional requirements

I thought it would be good to mention the minimum age set by the Constitution. If the focus of this article is solely on people who actually hold or have held the office - as opposed to what is theoretically possible - then maybe that's not appropriate in this article. 24.2.11.101 (talk) 06:01, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The "Oldest Living United States Presidents" table is a complete disaster.

The second table needs to be scrapped and redone. The columns are wrong. Every date is wrong. And it says George W. bush is th incumbent. Someone brought this up before but his revision was undone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhino79 (talk • contribs) 20:30, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

The second table is a list of (former) U.S. presidents who are, or have been, the oldest president alive. George H. W. Bush is still the oldest now-living (former) president. Thus, he is the incumbent oldest living U.S. president. —ADavidB 07:05, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree entirely. The title of the argument is not even remotely represented by what is actually on the page. You have a List of Presidents of the United States by age - but they are not in order. There is no sequence, not even a readable possibility unless you are planning to do brain exercises using Wikipedia lists. Neither sequence is organized, and the last list may be utterly useless. All that it appears to try and tell you is who are the oldest presidents to have served by length of lifetime (or at least that is its intention but it also doesn't have an order even for that claim) regardless of when they are president at what age, which is probably the most significant factor in a list of the power and influence of the presidencies over time. Is there a corollary between age and behavior? We can never know if we don't have the information... Stevenmitchell (talk) 23:27, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Is anyone aware that history is probably chronological? Stevenmitchell (talk) 23:28, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm confused by your comments. You're responding under a heading about the second table but you seem to be talking about both tables. Are you talking about the first table or the second table? Regarding the first table: it's true that this Wikipedia page should probably be entitled "List of Presidents of the United States" instead of "List of Presidents of the United States by age," since the first table is not default sorted by age. But you say "there is no sequence," which is not true -- the entries are in chronological sequence, and the table can be sorted along several different columns. As for the second table, I personally find it unnecessary, but it is properly organized. To explain, looking at the three last entries in the table: from 1981 to 2004, Ronald Reagan was the oldest living president or ex-president (he was older than Nixon, Ford, and Carter, the other living ex-presidents). When Reagan died on June 5, 2004, Gerald Ford became the oldest living ex-president. When Ford died on December 26, 2006, George H.W. Bush became the oldest living ex-president. So the table does make sense, But the word "incumbent" in George H.W. Bush's entry confuses readers. I don't really see the need for the second table because I don't see why anyone cares who the oldest living ex-president is, and I'd be happy to see it go. But that would probably require some discussion. Tinmanic (talk) 00:15, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Jimmy Carter has been alive and 10 years older than GHWB this whole time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.91.9.115 (talk) 06:18, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

The dates of presidency are completely wrong: it says that John Adams was a president for more than 26 year, Reagan - for more than 23 years. I just looked at some of the dates. I am pretty sure there is more wrong dates. It needs double checking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.223.155.30 (talk) 17:56, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

It seems you're misinterpreting the data provided. This article is about how long presidents continued to live (after becoming president), not how long each was in the White House. —ADavidB 04:34, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Gerald Ford was absolutely not 90 years old when he assumed office. This table is a joke. 199.168.151.176 (talk) 18:47, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Gerald Ford was 90 years old when he became the oldest living president. You're misinterpreting the table. This table used to be on a separate page, but now it's here, as it was merged here a couple years ago. Canuck^{89 (chat with me)} 21:59, November 16, 2015 (UTC)

I think something needs to be done in order to clarify the meaning of what's presented in the table: the period during which each man was the oldest living President. Clearly, many people have misinterpreted it as simply a chart of each President's time in office. Ultimately, however, is this information important enough to lay out in this table format? Would it best to remove the table, and just write out some of its core details? TheMrP (talk) 20:53, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

TheMrP, are you aware that you've added a comment to a discusion that took place nearly 2½ years ago? Several hundred edits have been made to the article since then. I believe that those earlier concerns have been addressed. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 21:41, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I didn't realize how old the discussion was, but I came here as a result of my own confusion with respect to the table, so the problem doesn't seem to have been resolved. TheMrP (talk) 22:18, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough TheMrP; please then, start a new discussion below by stating what you find confusing, and suggesting how things might be made more clear and concise. Thanks for your input. Drdpw (talk) 15:06, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Age at inauguration

The data for age at inauguration should be listed in days, not years and days. Presently, there is no account for leap years. For example, Ronald Reagan was '69 years and 349 days' old. Assuming 365 days in a year, that amounts to 25,534 days when it should be 25,511. Would be worth a fix if someone has time, or a script. 24.222.214.125 (talk) 21:25, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Leap days are part of the (leap) year in which they occur and are still thus "counted". Election years are generally leap years; the years 1800 and 1900 were not. Do you have any examples of why it is important to compare presidents' ages in days at this or another career milestone? Are you anticipating a tie-breaker situation? —ADavidB 04:39, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Leap years will depend on the dates involved. There's less work for the reader if things are listed like they are for lifespan (e.g. 24,767 days (67 years, 295 days)). Basically if we're going to have an article on comparing presidents by age, we should present the data in the most useful way possible 24.222.214.125 (talk) 21:52, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Pages which focus on ages like Oldest people rank people by years/days, not days. We should do the same here. I'll make the same points here I've made there on this issue. First, no one when talking of how old someone is says they are 30,000 days old or whatever, they say they are 30 years old. So to say a president lived 29,446 days is an utterly meaningless statistic to virtually any reader who may look at this page. Secondly, the stated reason for this, to account for leap years, implies an accuracy of a 24-hour day when comparing ages/time-spans. However, unless we know the time of birth and the time of death, there is in fact a margin of error of nearly TWO days for a president's age. Someone born the day before someone but who dies on the same day as that person may have in fact had a shorter life span if they were born just before midnight and died just after midnight if the other person was born just after midnight the next day and survived until near midnight on the day they both died. Canada Jack (talk) 02:16, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

As per the lede: "Two measures of longevity are given; this is to allow for the differing number of leap days occurring within the life of each President." I see no reason why this shouldn't be applied to all of the times given. As for your time of day comment, duh. (Edit: to clarify that beyond the glibness of just 'duh' obviously there is going to be inaccuracy when dealing with days, but that is true of all whole-unit data. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't present the information in the clearest way possible e.g. by using Y-M-D and days)24.222.214.125 (talk) 17:06, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing "clear" about adding days here. It is in fact the exact opposite, it gives a number which is completely meaningless to just about every person who might look at this page. Year/day suffices. And, as I stated, there is no "issue" about the leap years - it is OR from an over-enthusiastic editor. If there is a reliable source who says it is an issue, affix the reference. To put it succinctly, it is inane to "clarify" something which changes the count by at most a single day when the margin of error in terms of births/deaths is already almost two days! It's within the margin of error, therefore the note - and the day count - is irrelevant and should be removed. This is beside the obvious point that none of the rankings here are affected by this non-issue. Canada Jack (talk) 17:59, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

That's an unduly low bar for OR. It is effectively base operations. Kind of like if you subtract the difference between the two numbers in the example above, you'll find that the value are off by a full 23 days -- or most of a month. So I supposed you could say that this is problematic as even the current information contains errors. Also, there is no margin of error in this -- that's a different kind of math, meaningless here. This is a question, effectively, of [significant figures]. 24.222.214.125 (talk) 22:59, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

You seem to miss the point. There is no "23 day" difference between year/day and day-count tabulations; there is at most a single day difference, owing to the presence or absence of a leap year. The presence of a day-count implies an accuracy which is not present - for the simple reason the margin of error when we measure by days is about 48 hours. i.e., the margin of error is greater than the supposed increase in "accuracy" by using the day-count method. Since virtually no person has a comprehension of what life span in days means, we should just stick to the year/day count as it is just as accurate given the margin of error using day-counts. Canada Jack (talk) 16:07, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

One single-day difference for each leap-year. That's 23 days for Reagan, Ford, Bush and Carter. Jack Rudd (talk) 00:58, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

That would be 23 days more not less as reg years have 365 days and leap years 366 AmYisroelChai (talk) 14:20, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Suggestion: Add age at leaving office

Since we already have date of birth and date when leaving office (due to death or completion of the term of office), it seems fairly simple to calculate the age when leaving office (due to death or completion of the term of office).

I think we should add the result of that calculation. A list of U.S. Presidents by age should include their ages for the entire time in office, e.g., served from age 41 years 3 days to 49 years 2 days. A person should, for example, be able to tell from the table the oldest that anyone was while in office (Reagan) and that JFK's death was the only time that a person left office as young as he was. 71.109.145.235 (talk) 00:41, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Though not in the same table, the "Age at end date" is included in the next section, for those presidents who were the oldest of their time. I don't think the content should be duplicated in the article. —ADavidB 23:15, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Never mind. On looking closer, I see that is the age at which the presidents' being "oldest of their time" ended. —ADavidB 01:39, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I went ahead and added the "age at retirement" column to the main table on the page. In most cases, it's simply the age at inauguration plus four or eight years, but there are eleven exceptions thus far. For those presidents who died before retirement, the lifespan column shows their age on their last day of service. —ADavidB 03:59, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Deleted sentences may someone find them useful

Below there are deleted sentences (some deleted for no good reason) may someone someday find them useful:

The oldest living president, George H. W. Bush, will tie Reagan if he lives to October 10, 2017, and tie Ford if he lives to November 24, 2017. The second-oldest living president, Jimmy Carter, will tie Reagan if he lives to January 29, 2018, and tie Ford if he lives to March 15, 2018. The four longest-lived presidents (Ford, Reagan, Bush and Carter) all held the office since 1974. When John Adams (90 years, 247 days) surpassed the first-ever president George Washington (aged 67 years, 295 days) as the longest-lived one on August 22, 1803, his record lasted to October 11, 2001, when Ronald Reagan surpassed him. Reagan's record was held only to November 12, 2006, when he was surpassed by Gerald Ford.

The president with the longest retirement is Jimmy Carter, at 15,876 days. Carter achieved this record on September 8, 2012, surpassing Herbert Hoover, who died 11,553 days after leaving the presidency. Hoover held the record for more than 54 years, from July 5, 1958, when he surpassed John Adams, until September 8, 2012, when Carter surpassed Hoover. Adams, only the second president to retire, had held the record for over 154 years, since December 14, 1803, when he surpassed George Washington. The president with the shortest retirement was James K. Polk, who died 103 days after leaving the presidency.--Maher27777 (talk) 13:42, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Trump age error

How can his date at inauguration (70 yrs 220 days) be less than his total lifespan (70 yrs 269 days) when the inauguration date is in the future? Please correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.253.128.9 (talk) 19:07, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

An IP user has already corrected Trump's birth date, used to calculate his age. —ADavidB 19:58, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Youngest living president?

We have a table of the oldest living presidents. Could there also be one for the youngest living presidents? I think it looks like this:

1789-1797 Washington 1797-1801 J.Adams 1801-1809 Jefferson 1809-1817 Madison 1817-1825 Monroe 1825-1837 J.Q.Adams 1837-1841 van Buren 1841-1845 Tyler 1845-1849 Polk 1849-1850 Tyler (only one with nonconsecutive terms) 1850-1853 Fillmore 1853-1861 Pierce 1861-1865 Lincoln 1865-1869 A.Johnson 1869-1877 Grant 1877-1881 Hayes 1881-1881 Garfield 1881-1885 Arthur 1885-1897 Cleveland 1897-1901 McKinley 1901-1919 T.Roosevelt 1919-1921 Taft (became youngest living president *after* having been the oldest living president) 1921-1923 Harding 1923-1929 Coolidge 1929-1933 Hoover 1933-1945 F.Roosevelt 1945-1953 Truman 1953-1961 Eisenhower 1961-1963 Kennedy 1963-1969 L.Johnson 1969-1974 Nixon 1974-1977 Ford (last Republican to have this distinction) 1977-1993 Carter 1993-2009 Clinton 2009- Obama 80.229.81.191 (talk) 16:10, 25 February 2017 (UTC)Jack Rudd

Its a bit of a waste as the youngest usually would be the newest president who would lose that distinction when his successor is sworn in except for a few anomalies as when an older person succeeds a younger as when Reagan succeeded carter, Bush succeeded Clinton, and Trump succeeded Obama AmYisroelChai (talk) 14:26, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Post Presidency Sort Error for Polk & Obama

Does anyone understand this? I'm guessing it is some quirk with the way the dates are inserted into the table. I tried playing around a bit but couldn't fix it. Do we just live with it until Obama is out for a full year and he gets the same format as the older living presidents? Thanks. DavidRF (talk) 20:43, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I changed the hidden sort number. The same adjustment will be necessary to keep GW Bush sorting correctly in a few days when his post presidency surpasses Grant's. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 21:45, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Ronald Reagan surpassing John Adams and Gerald Ford surpassing Ronald Reagan

The article says that Ronald Reagan surpassed John Adams on October 12, 2001 and Gerald Ford surpassed Ronald Reagan on November 11, 2006. But when I counted that I found out that Reagan tied Adams on October 10, 2001 and Ford tied Reagan on November 11, 2006, so this means that Reagan surpassed Adams on October 11, 2001 and Ford surpassed Reagan on November 12, 2006. Omitti86 (talk) 00:37, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for fact-checking the article. I've looked into the discrepancy and here's what I found –

• When measuring lifespan by days, RR's lifespan surpassed JA's on October 11, 2001. However, when measuring by years & days, RR's lifespan did not surpass JA's until the following day, October 12.
• GF's lifespan, when measuring by days and also by years & days, did indeed surpass RR's on November 12, 2006.

I can only speculate on the cause of the apparent "days"–"years & days" descrepancy when it comes to RR and JA. Perhaps it's leap year related, as the lifespan of both GF and RR included one more February 29th than did JA's. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 17:57, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

1800 was not a leap year; that's probably the cause of it. 109.157.12.179 (talk) 12:17, 8 November 2017 (UTC)Jack Rudd

This discussion is moot given that the margin of error when measuring by days is just under two days. It's pointless to quibble about a difference of a day when that is within the margin of error. If we knew the time of birth and time of death, then we could determine the exact day that someone surpasses the age of someone else. Canada Jack (talk) 15:59, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

As mentioned on a recent radio talk show, this article gives the age of 55.5 as both the median and the mean. I is this accurate? Michaplot (talk) 15:39, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Using static text vs age-calculating template

Is there a reason for using the "age in years and days" template for numbers that will not change? For example, Theodore Roosevelt became president at the age of 42 years, 322 days. Obviously that number is never going to change, so wouldn't it be better to enter it exactly like that instead of using a template to calculate the difference between the dates of his birth and inauguration? Of course, the end result is the same, but isn't it better to limit calls to templates when we can? LarryJeff (talk) 15:46, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

No I think using a template is always better as that is what they're there for, it makes sure that the number is right, it makes it easier to check if its the right number , and it makes it harder to change AmYisroelChai (talk) 16:08, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I can go along with it being a good way to know the number is right, but I'm not sure it's "what they're there for." I think what the template was designed for is to keep an ever-changing number updated without needing an editor to manually change the article every day. Also I don't understand how the template makes it harder to change--whether it's the template or not, it's equally easy to change. LarryJeff (talk) 16:41, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

These templates are used on most pages with lifespans its harder to change because you cant simply visual edit. AmYisroelChai (talk) 18:09, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Tables vs. Lists

Seems like one user is acting with WP:OWN motivations and not allowing the lists of time periods in which there was only one living president and 6 living presidents to be displayed as tables (with an astonishingly unconvincing edit summary "Information long-rendered as a bulleted list on this page" and therefore that's how it should remain). For reference, here are the two versions of

• The list format
• The table format

Not only can one better extract and visualize the information with the table format, the table format also shows time spans, which the list does not. Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 09:19, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree with the table format on this own it looks neater and you get the information you want. AmYisroelChai (talk) 14:31, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

As long as the information is included, I'm neutral here as to whether it's in bullet, table, or prose form. —ADavidB 13:50, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Protection

i got this page the vp age page and the british pm age page semi protected for a month to stop the constant ip edits from upon accession to of or at accession. AmYisroelChai (talk) 14:39, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! Czolgolz (talk) 14:49, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Revision of phrase "youngest person at the time of leaving office after serving a full four-year term"

I am revising the text "the youngest person at the time of leaving office after serving a full four-year term was Theodore Roosevelt" so that it states, "the youngest president to leave office in the course of standard transition was Theodore Roosevelt". The use of "full four-year term" leaves open the suggestion that presidents who did not serve a "full four-year term" such as John Tyler, Millard Fillmore, Andrew Johnson or Gerald Ford are not included in the calculation. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 00:09, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Indeed; while TR is the 3rd youngest at the conclusion of his presidency, he is the youngest to leave office because his (partial or full) term ended, rather then by his death. However it's worded, the sentence needs to convay that the only two not included in the calculation are Kennedy and Garfield. Perhaps something like:
Aside from John Kennedy and James Garfield (who was also assassinated), the youngest person at the time of leaving office was Theodore Roosevelt.
—Drdpw (talk) 01:49, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

RE:The 2 new tables

In addition to a few minor cosmetic tweaks to the recently added tables, I have (1) created and moved them to a separate section, as the information in them is (unlike the surrounding material (in prose & image gallary) not directly related to the subject of presidents' ages; (2) switched from Template:Number table sorting to Template:Age in days in the cells of the "length of time" column, for while sometimes useful in sortable tables, the nts-template isn't useful outside of sortable tables; and (3) removed the unnecessary top table titles, as they simply repeat what is stated in the sentence before each table. Drdpw (talk) 03:08, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Oldest living president

Some suggested additions and copy edits:...

Of the 44 persons who have served as president, 24 have become the oldest such individual of their time. Herbert Hoover held this distinction for the longest period of any, from the death of Calvin Coolidge in January 1933 until his own death 31 years later. Lyndon B. Johnson held it for the shortest, from the death of Harry S. Truman in December 1972 until his own death only 27 days later.

On three occasions the oldest living president lost this distinction not by death, but by succession. Theodore Roosevelt (born 1858) lost it when William Taft (born 1857) was inaugurated. Taft, in turn, lost it when Woodrow Wilson (born 1856) succeeded him. Consequently, Taft became (as the only person) the oldest living president twice: first during his presidency, and a second time after Wilson died. More recently, Richard Nixon (born 1913) ceased being the oldest living president when Ronald Reagan (born 1911) was inaugurated.

Theodore Roosevelt was not only the youngest president, he was also the youngest person to become the oldest (and only) living president (at age 50) and the youngest former president (at age 51). Gerald Ford, at the other end, was the oldest individual to acquire the distinction of being the oldest living president at the age of 90. Jimmy Carter (age 99) is the oldest president never to have become the oldest living president. He can lose this title to Thomas Jefferson (died age 83) if he dies after George H. W. Bush. Instead, he will then take Gerald Ford's title. Soerfm (talk) 17:48, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Fewest and most living presidents

Maybe the section Fewest and most living presidents should be merged with the article Living Presidents of the United States. It seems to belong better there. Soerfm (talk) 14:14, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support – I agree that the Living Presidents of the United States article is a better place for that content. —ADavidB 14:41, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

In fact, the information is already there, in that article's Statistics section. Also, the "Oldest living U.S. presidents" section here already includes a "See also" link pointing there. —ADavidB 14:56, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support - The “fewest” and “most” lists are not a good fit for this page. As the information is on the Living Presidents page, it’s unnecessary and redundant to have the lists here as well. Drdpw (talk) 19:46, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

 Implemented - There being no further discussion, I have removed the fewest and most lists from the article. Drdpw (talk) 01:37, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Revision of phrase "oldest person to begin a new 4-year term"

I am revising the text [at the end of the 2nd paragraph] "The oldest person to begin a new 4-year term was Ronald Reagan, who was 73 years, 349 days at the time of his second inauguration" so that it states, "The oldest person to be sworn in was Ronald Reagan, who was 73 years, 349 days at the time of his second inauguration". The use of "begin a new 4-year term" leaves open the suggestion that presidents who did not begin a new 4-year term at the start of their presidency, such as John Tyler, Millard Fillmore, Andrew Johnson or Gerald Ford are not included in the calculation. Also, the solemn circumstances associated with the president being replaced by the vice-president result in the cancelation of inaugural ceremonies, thus indicating the use of the term "sworn in", rather than "inaugurated". —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 04:00, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Merge from List of Presidents of the United States by date and place of birth

User:Drdpw mentioned it surviving an AFD in reverting my merge but I do not see it linked in the talk page or history, can you please link it? These pages have also undergone changes since then. I fail to understand why List of Presidents of the United States by date and place of birth article exists. It is entirely redundant to List of Presidents of the United States by age and List of Presidents of the United States by home state. Adding a few tidbits of trivia does not warrant a separate article for this content that is already in other locations. Reywas92^Talk 01:39, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

@Reywas92: I was mistaken, the afd discussion was about List of Presidents of the United States by date of death. This being the case, and given that it has been de facto carried out, I have no further objection to the merge/redirect, and will implement the change. Drdpw (talk) 23:16, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Length of Retirement Sort Function needs to be fixed

It shows that Trump has the longest retirement, when he's still in office. Can someone please fix that? It has been driving me crazy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.248.200.136 (talk) 06:13, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

It wasn't readily clear to me what you meant, but I've added a data-sort-value of zero to President Trump's "post-presidency timespan" table cell, so when the table is sorted by that column, his line is at the low end of the sort. Here's to your sanity. —ADavidB 08:17, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate it. I meant when I would use the sort function on the table and have the longest retirement at the top, it would list Trump and then Carter, you're right I could have been clearer as to what the word 'it' meant in the first sentence of my comment. The Trump being ahead of Carter thing was there for awhile and I have no idea why, like maybe not many people use the sort function on length of retirement, so they didn't notice it. But thank you for fixing it. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.248.200.136 (talk) 17:24, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 February 2018

2604:6000:E588:FD00:113:53E:4DE5:E954 (talk) 02:47, 4 February 2018 (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. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 02:59, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Theodore Roosevelt's age when he became oldest living President and when he retired

It says he became the oldest living president at the age of 50 in the the paragraph, but at age 49 in the table below. "Furthermore, although Theodore Roosevelt was the youngest ever to become both the oldest living president (at age 50) and a former president (at age 51), he was the only living president or former president by the end of his term. " "Theodore Roosevelt June 24, 1908 – March 4, 1909 49 years, 241 days 50 years, 128 days 253 days". Also, it says he become a former president at the age of 51 in the paragraph, but at age 50 in the table above. Could someone please at least make this article consistent? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.248.142.193 (talk) 21:02, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Done. עם ישראל חי (talk) 21:59, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Slight expansion of information contained under "Age of U.S. presidents"

Within the last paragraph under section header "Age of U.S. presidents" is the text, "The second oldest, Jimmy Carter, has the distinction of having the longest post-presidency in U.S. history, currently at 43 years, 171 days. The youngest living president is Barack Obama, born August 4, 1961 (age 62 years, 340 days). On November 25, 2017, Bush also became the longest-lived president, surpassing the lifespan of Gerald Ford, who died at the age of 93 years, 165 days on December 26, 2006."

Since that portion of the paragraph explains who George H. W. Bush surpassed to become the longest-lived president, I added the green-marked text which specifies whose timespan Jimmy Carter surpassed for the distinction of having the longest post-presidency in U.S. history. "The second oldest, Jimmy Carter, has the distinction of having the longest post-presidency in U.S. history, currently at 43 years, 171 days, surpassing Herbert Hoover's post-presidency timespan of 31 years, 230 days on September 7, 2012." —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 11:54, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

The text can be actually expanded slightly further so that it indicates when the record was set, as in the form used for George H. W. Bush's surpassing of Gerald Ford's record: "surpassing Herbert Hoover's post-presidency timespan of 31 years, 230 days (set upon his death on October 20, 1964) on September 7, 2012." —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 16:01, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Another possible form might be: "On September 7, 2012 he surpassed the previous record (31 years, 230 days) held by Herbert Hoover since his death on October 20, 1964." —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 23:04, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

That's an unnecesarily wordy and ambiguous statement. Did Hoover set the "longest post-presidency" record on 10/20/1964, or did he stopped adding days to a record he already held? Is it really important to note when he set the now-broken record or when he stopped adding to it? It seems a bit trivial to me. Drdpw (talk) 23:49, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Two points: 1) Since all details are indicated with exactitude (Jimmy Carter's post-presidency is updated daily, with today's total specified as 37 years, 35 days), the start of his post-presidency should be probably also indicated with exactitude: January 20, 1981, not merely January 1981. Point 2) concerns the previous post-presidency record timespan. In the same manner that we have the exact date on which the previous record holder's lifespan ended: "...surpassing the lifespan of Gerald Ford, who died at the age of 93 years, 165 days on December 26, 2006", we should also analogously have, within the same paragraph, the exact date on which the previous record holder's post-presidency timespan ended: "...surpassing the previous record of 31 years, 230 days held by Herbert Hoover since his death on October 20, 1964". —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 01:05, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Carter's post-presidency endurance is only updated daily because it lengthens daily; the precise start date doesn't change and isn't as relevant. I expect Ford's sentence has included more detail because it occurred more recently, but if all structure must be consistent, we can just as easily leave out the extra detail for both Ford and Hoover. It's not like readers can't get the info from the tabular data. —ADavidB 01:45, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

As I added the parenthetical note regarding Carter's post-presidency start-date, I'll remove it, along with Ford's date of death, as both are of secondary importance here. Drdpw (talk) 02:02, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

median age

the median age upon accession is the middle president or the 2 middle ones divided in two so 45 presidents makes the 23rd president by age the median עם ישראל חי (talk) 19:18, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 31 May 2018

• List of presidents of the United States by age → List of Presidents of the United States by age
• List of autobiographies by presidents of the United States → List of autobiographies by Presidents of the United States
• List of burial places of presidents and vice presidents of the United States → List of burial places of Presidents and Vice Presidents of the United States
• Historical rankings of presidents of the United States → Historical rankings of Presidents of the United States
• Living presidents and vice presidents of the United States → Living Presidents and Vice Presidents of the United States
• List of presidents of the United States by military rank → List of Presidents of the United States by military rank
• List of multilingual presidents of the United States → List of multilingual Presidents of the United States
• List of educational institutions named after U.S. presidents → List of educational institutions named after Presidents of the United States
• List of U.S. counties named after U.S. Presidents → List of U.S. counties named after Presidents of the United States
• Lists of fictional presidents of the United States → Lists of fictional Presidents of the United States

– Talk:List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States#Requested_move_20_May_2018 and Talk:List_of_Vice_Presidents_of_the_United_States#Requested_move_21_May_2018 were both closed without a consensus to move the pages/leave it capitalized. These pages should be capitalized as well if the consensus is to capitalize the pages. 75.67.58.188 (talk) 22:51, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support, but create REDIRECTS for caps/un-caps NO MATTER WHAT - I mean, we have to keep it consistent somehow. Either NONE of them should be in caps or ALL of them should. They should all match up, in my opinion. But, NO MATTER WHAT happens, REDIRECTS should be CREATED for the capitalized/un-capitalized variant titles to all of these pages and the ones listed on Talk:List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States#Requested_move_20_May_2018 and Talk:List_of_Vice_Presidents_of_the_United_States#Requested_move_21_May_2018. Paintspot Infez (talk) 01:30, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. Per WP:LOWERCASE, titles are written in sentence case, that is to say, the same way they would be written in a prose sentence in the middle of a paragraph. Per 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.

  It goes on to say

  They are capitalized only in the following cases:

  • When followed by a person's name to form a title, i.e., when they can be considered to have become part of the name: President Nixon, not president Nixon
  • When a title is used to refer to a specific and obvious person as a substitute for their name, e.g., the Queen, not the queen, referring to Elizabeth II
  • When a formal title for a specific entity (or conventional translation thereof) is addressed as a title or position in and of itself, is not plural, is not preceded by a modifier (including a definite or indefinite article), and is not a reworded description

  As none of these exceptions applies, the titles 'president' and 'vice president' should be lower case. I do appreciate the desire for consistency, but just because a different discussion failed come to a consensus to make a change to be in compliance with the MOS, that is no reason to change these articles to be out of compliance with the manual of style. I would support this change only after a discussion results in a consensus to change the WP:MOS. YBG (talk) 02:11, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

• As the closer of the linked discussions closer of one of the linked discussions, I'd like to point out that "no consensus to move to lowercase" does not mean that there was "consensus to capitalize the pages." It means that there was no agreement that a change would be preferable to the status quo. While consistency is encouraged, the old closes are not sufficient evidence that capitalized titles are preferred. Dekimasuよ! 05:39, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support, per consistency with other similar pages and as the most familiar form (considered commonly as a proper noun). Randy Kryn (talk) 19:23, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support per nomination and Randy Kryn.    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 23:52, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support- let's get these articles in line with List of Presidents of the United States & List of Vice Presidents of the United States articles. GoodDay (talk) 11:32, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
• N-gram result, here is the n-gram showing the large majority use of upper-cased 'Presidents of the United States (consistent upper-casing since the early-1820s). Randy Kryn (talk) 12:46, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
• Comment – Premature request, because of an ongoing move review that discusses capitalization of "presidents" in the plural form. — JFG ^talk 21:46, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose, per WP:JOBTITLES. The word "presidents" is a common plural lower-cased noun, as you can see from this ngram. Does the phrase "of the United States" carry capitalization powers of some kind? Before anyone uses the result of some other RM as a basis to close this one, check this move review. BTW, thank you Dekimasu for disavowing the notion that your close should be used a precedent. Nine Zulu queens (talk) 01:15, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. - Just because the other RM ended in no consensus does not mean that MOS:JOBTITLES needs to be thrown out the window. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 17:49, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose, per MOS:JOBTITLES. It should be our guideline, not a consistency with other titles. —ADavidB 01:57, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per MOS:JOBTITLES which is absolutely crystal clear on this usage, with an actual example in lowercase, and especially per the excellent rationale expressed by User:YBG and the lack of consensus to capitalize in the other RM. Also per the comments from User:Nine Zulu queens and common English usage. As to comments about other articles using the capitalized word president; WP:OTHERSTUFF is the answer. - Becksguy (talk) 02:57, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support per MOS:JOBTITLES. Titles of a job are capitalised and treated as a proper noun when they take the form "President of the United States". These articles all pertain to the parent topic President of the United States, which is capitalised as a proper noun. Also good to maintain WP:CONSISTENCY (which is a policy) with the other similar articles.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:24, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Have you read MOS:JOBTITLES? "Camp David is a mountain retreat for presidents of the United States States" is given as an example. Nine Zulu queens (talk) 23:30, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Using the capitalized word 'president' would be correct for a single specific president (as in President Eisenhower), but not for the plural of president (as in recent Democratic presidents), or referencing the office, or for a list of presidents, of which this article obviously is. Per MOS:JOBTITLES. - Becksguy (talk) 11:15, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support per nom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:300:C930:28CC:F8A2:C31F:1A50 (talk) 16:52, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Adding "See also" with five links

I am appending section header "See also" with the five links below which, among over a hundred entries at Category:Lists relating to the United States presidency, appear to be sufficiently relevant to the topic of this list:

• List of Presidents of the United States
• List of Presidents of the United States by time in office
• List of Presidents of the United States by date of death
• List of Presidents of the United States who died in office
• Lifespan timeline of Presidents of the United States    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 23:52, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Although those links appear somewhat relevant, I removed the added See also section, because it's redundant. The page already contains a navbox—Lists related to the Presidents and Vice Presidents of the United States—which contains those links plus many others. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 01:13, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Just want to point out to editors who may not know this, but templates (navboxes) don't appear on mobile. So half of our readers won't see those links unless they come up on See also. Other dropped information to mobile readers include categories and, if my understanding is correct, talk pages. So the See also additions to a small list of pertinent topics, such as some but not all of those added by Roman Spinner, seems to be adding good information to readers who wouldn't see them otherwise. Randy Kryn (talk) 08:42, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Talk pages can be viewed on mobile, but they are accessed differently. There is a "Talk" button at the bottom of every page. For example look at this very page in mobile view and scroll to the bottom. By the way, you can see the mobile view of any page by scrolling to the bottom of the page and clicking the "mobile view" link; likewise, from mobile view, scroll to the bottom and click "desktop view" if you wish. YBG (talk) 14:41, 5 June 2018 (UTC)