Jump to content

Talk:List of presidents of the United States

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 2603:9000:f700:5200:5910:1f0f:8b20:a6f0 (talk) at 00:11, 20 December 2019 (→Semi-protected edit request on 20 December 2019: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former featured listList of presidents of the United States is a former featured list. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page and why it was removed. If it has improved again to featured list standard, you may renominate the article to become a featured list.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 15, 2005Featured list candidatePromoted
October 30, 2008Featured list removal candidateDemoted
June 26, 2009Featured list candidateNot promoted
Current status: Former featured list

Missing from "Several presidents campaigned unsuccessfully for other U.S. state or federal elective offices after serving as president"

Shouldn't Ford, Carter and H.W. Bush be included in the section titled "Several presidents campaigned unsuccessfully for other U.S. state or federal elective offices after serving as president"?

No, because they did so while in office, not after serving as president, . Drdpw (talk) 20:36, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
they did so while serving as president not after they were still president when they lost the election עם ישראל חי (talk) 20:52, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, they didn't seek any office after their service as president. GoodDay (talk) 04:09, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2019

We were confused when looking at the dates of the presidential offices in the large table.

The heading "Term" for the list is confusing since it actually refers only (as noted in the footnotes) to the dates of the election and the inauguration. I am suggesting the words "Term Began" since it always past tense, although "Began", "Start", or "Onset" might be considered. I understand the need for a short title for a narrow column. I think the column in itself is confusing since that is not usually the way this data is displayed, but a better title would help. GordonGU (talk) 22:17, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I have edited the note with an explanation. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:45, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think that whole column should go. Not only is it very confusing, but I don't think I've seen "terms" numbered and broken out this way elsewhere. Is there some reliable source that does this or is it original research? - Station1 (talk) 08:35, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. GoodDay (talk) 16:31, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For the governors lists (ex: List of Governors of Alabama) I've replaced the 'term' column with an 'election' column, which makes much more sense. I agree that numbering the terms (and thus, giving meaning to that numbering) veers into original research. --Golbez (talk) 14:26, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, the List of Vice Presidents of the United States article, is done correctly (though it too, should have the numbers deleted from its 'Election' column'). GoodDay (talk) 16:42, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've change it to 'Election' & thus removed the inauguration years. However, the changes have possibly created a 'new' confusion concerning 'unelected' presidents & 'unelected' vice presidents. GoodDay (talk) 17:55, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think we may be trying to do too much with one single column. We need to reach consensus on which bit of information is most important to convey. Personally, I think it should be the range of years in which they held the office (which applies to all... including those who were never elected)... or never inaugurated). Trying to do too much in one column is confusing. Blueboar (talk) 19:37, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They were all inaugurated. GoodDay (talk) 19:54, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the column formerly titled "Term" contained too much information. I like the revised "Election" version. Also, Blueboar, range of years in office is given in the 2nd Presidency column. Drdpw (talk) 20:32, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
ah... so it is... ok. Blueboar (talk) 22:49, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

the intro section is mostly trivia

from this on down "Grover Cleveland served two non-consecutive terms in office". It should mostly be removed, or if people disagree then the trivia should be moved to a new section titled "trivia about US presidents" and placed below the actual relevant content, which is the listing of the presidents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.254.135.248 (talk) 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Eh, I disagree, and I'm very much someone who works to eliminate trivia in these articles (for example, I would love to rip out the lifespans and prior offices). But this establishes the extremes of the office. It helps to explain that one person served twice; the shortest and longest terms; the reasons terms were short or long; the party structure; etc. --Golbez (talk) 05:24, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And that relates to an article claiming to be a list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.254.135.248 (talk) 12:01, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a detailed list with an informative intro. What would you prefer, a simple "This is a list US Presidents", followed by a bare-bones tables with just three columns; "#", "Name" and "Start/End dates"...?

This is an encyclopaedia, the objective is to provide information. The more relevant, deatailed and supported info, the better. - wolf 13:40, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kind of, yes. Let me put an example and then I'll not complain again since it seems that my view is in the minority. Here is some text in this article that is representative of my general complaint for about half of the intro: "Of those who have served as the nation's president, four died in office of natural causes". And here is one definition of trivia (from the wiki page on trivia): "bits of information of little consequence". I fail to see how the fact that four presidents died in office of natural causes is of any consequnce to the "List of Presidents of the United States". How many had brown hair, or lost their teeth while in office, for example? There are perhaps valid reasons for how many women or people of color have been president in this list, but why is it important on this page to specify the date of George Bush's death, or that Harrison was in office for precisely 31 days? If that is definitive encycolpedic information and not trivia then I simply misunderstand the situation. Thank you both for your previous replies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.254.135.248 (talk) 02:10, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The colour of a Presidents hair or the number of teeth they have are trivial as compared to them dying in office, which not only marks the end of their term in office, an event that is part of the data covered by this list, and that directly ties into the 25th amendment, Presidential succession and data regarding the Vice President, which could all be hardly considered "trivial". A President dying in office is encyclopaedic information, the number of teeth a president has is not. (And on another note, if you intend to reply again, please WP:INDENT your post and WP:SIGN it. Thanks) - wolf 04:53, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I figure that list articles like these need only explain: What is the office; who was in the office; how you get into the office; and how you get out of the office. Assassinations are definitely exceptional enough to be noted - only one US Governor has ever been assassinated in office, and we definitely note that. Usually, the extremes of the office are also noted - being in a 4 year office only a month is kind of notable. Teeth and hair have nothing to do with entering or exiting the office, but dying in office certainly does. As for George Bush's lifespan - I completely agree, that's definitely excessive for this article as it has nothing to do with the office, how he got into it, or how he left it. But thus far, you and I seem to be in the minority on that one. Basically, the intro is kind of for this kind of thing. Otherwise we have a one sentence intro that doesn't help anyone. But on the other hand, I have been working hard to remove things that I consider trivial, like lists of living office holders or other offices they held. --Golbez (talk) 06:40, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Buchanan was senator & secretary of state before Potus

Should not the antecedent prominence of Pres. Buchanan be senator and secretary of state, rather than the obscurely named minister which now occupied the background square? (PeacePeace (talk) 20:53, 7 March 2019 (UTC))[reply]

We list the most recent position, before POTUS. GoodDay (talk) 21:26, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a reason why we limit this to just the most recent? Why not more? Blueboar (talk) 23:07, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Because it would elongate each of the boxes & overall elongate the article. See for example: LBJ, Nixon & certainly Bush 41. GoodDay (talk) 23:17, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since we are on this topic of only listing the most recent office held, I think Rutherford B. Hayes and Bill Clinton should have their first non-consecutive terms as governor removed instead of listing them both. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:16, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we shouldn't have this column at all, as it can be seen to be somewhat subjective, and doesn't add much to an understanding of the list. --Golbez (talk) 01:20, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Good point Golbez, and what's more, that information can be gleaned from List of Presidents of the United States by other offices held and List of Presidents of the United States by previous experience; additionally, specific military record information can be found at List of presidents of the United States by military rank and List of Presidents of the United States by military service. Drdpw (talk) 02:02, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No objections to deleting the column from this article & from List of Vice Presidents of the United States article. GoodDay (talk) 02:14, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The column takes up a lot of space and is of limited usefulness. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:26, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the column for prior office; it's quite informative and does not take too much space unless viewed on a tiny screen (a generic issue with most tables). However, I'd like to suggest removing the "Lived: xx years" mention. We already list the birth and death dates, it looks superfluous and trivia to add the age at death (or current age for living presidents). — JFG talk 11:48, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'd keep both. The prior office makes sense allowing people to quickly glance where the president came from. As for the age, it doesn't take any real space and it's something people are often interested in. Regards SoWhy 12:18, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John Quincy Adams portrait

I propose that we change the portrait of John Q. Adams. The default on this list seems to be to use a photograph, unless a good-quality photograph is unavailable, in which case we use a painting. But we actually have a pretty good photograph of Adams. And it's apparently good enough that it is the lead image on the John Quincy Adams main article. If it's good enough to use as the lead image for his main article, then I don't see why it isn't good enough to use in this list. Also, the painting of him we currently use necessitates a strange crop that cuts off his arm. And the description says it was painted 10 years after his death, so who knows if the artist even really knew what he looked like. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:46, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Current image
    Current image
  • Original version of current image
    Original version of current image
  • Proposed image
    Proposed image
That's a convincing argument. Support using the photograph. — JFG talk 11:41, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. A photograph made when the subject was alive is better than a portrait painted based on such photographs or other paintings. Regards SoWhy 12:21, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of portraits- July 2019

A new IP editor desires to change some of the portraits... not knowing that due to past edit wars, we require discussion first. I have no opinion on which images are best... but have opened this thread as a place to hold the discussion. Hopefully we can avoid another round of edit warring. Blueboar (talk) 18:34, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a problem with the changes per se but I prefer the old Jackson since it's more natural than the proposed one. File:Martin Van Buren by Mathew Brady c1855-58.jpg is a featured picture, so it might actually be a better one than the old black and white one. Regards SoWhy 19:44, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The remedy for edit warring is WP:AN3, not an unwritten local "discuss first" rule that turns the BRD process on its head. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:19, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 27 July 2019

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

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

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

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

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

So we keep trying to reach consensus, which, based on other recent RM discussions, seems possible this time. Dicklyon (talk) 22:05, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And who says that "they should continue to be capitalized in the plural"? Which authority on English orthography supports this view? You do understand that this claim directly contradicts AP Stylebook, The Chicago Manual of Style, other major style guides, and Wikipedia's own style guide. Surtsicna (talk) 12:42, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm content with either versions (capital or non-capital), as long as they're consistent (all caps or all non-caps) :) GoodDay (talk) 01:06, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Consistency is approached gradually, by follow guidelines that indicate which way to go. As nom points out, big progress toward consistency in jobtitles has been made by many recent RM discussions. There's no reason to stop short of the President of the United States, as if it's a too-respected title to treat like the rest. Dicklyon (talk) 01:14, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What the heck, I'll support the moves. Go which way the winds blow. GoodDay (talk) 01:35, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
GoodDay, the wind was a light breeze if that, RMs attended by two or three editors [EDIT:Besides myself. And the 'governor of New York' RM was well attended, as was the 'List of Vice Presidents of the United States' RM] Please read the relevant RM's and compare them to the May 2018 RM I link to above. Thanks. And *::Dicklyon, as I said above, I joined those very limited discussions and suggested that the nominators not go for the low-hanging fruit but go directly to where the main conversations on the topic had taken place. They didn't do that, and continued with RM's that were attended by two or three other editors [EDIT: Except the 'governors of New York' RM] So I don't think the results of those [EDIT: other] RMs should be taken into account in this one in any way. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:42, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Have you actually looked at those 11 listed recent examples of RMs since May 2018? It is clearly and completely false that they were discussions among only two or three editors. IIRC, exactly none of those fit that description. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:58, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
11? I'm going by the several RMs listed in the nomination, and see that I was wrong in that the 'governor of New York' RM was well attended and have edited my comment. The others listed in the nom weren't. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:40, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you meant, the pages you mentioned. The links go to the pages, not RM discussions. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:45, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All of those have had RM discussions since May 2018, and most of them had multi-article RM discussions, and all of them had consensus outcomes, as noted in my comments about each of them. None of the 11 RMs had less than 4 participants, and 5 if you include the closer. Some of them had three times that number or more. —BarrelProof (talk) 04:53, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Five more examples of consensus reached in RMs in about the last two years (bringing the total to 16 identified supporting lowercase plurals per MOS:JOBTITLES):
List of mayors of Leeds – multi-article move to lowercase 1 October 2017 (7 participants not counting the closer)
List of provosts of Aberdeen – multi-article move to lowercase 30 September 2017 (6 participants not counting the closer)
List of mayors of Birmingham – multi-article move to lowercase 21 September 2017 (about 10 participants not counting the closer)
List of mayors of Finsbury – multi-article agreement not to move from lowercase 6 August 2017 and previously also on 18 June 2017 (8 participants not counting the closers)
—BarrelProof (talk) 21:16, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. As per Manual of Style and for consistency. Davidelit (Talk) 02:54, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per MOS:JOBTITLES, AP Stylebook, The Chicago Manual of Style, and every other English language style guide I have seen. In each of them, it is explicit that the plural form "presidents" should be lower case. No evidence has ever been provided that the present capitalization is correct. Without citing an authority on orthography that says the capitalized form is correct, the oppose comments are entirely unsubstantiated. Surtsicna (talk) 12:42, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. "President" and the like should only be capitalized when used in front of a person's name (President Lincoln, Governor Bush, etc., but not the President and Prime Minister). This is how it works in the real world per numerous style guides, like the CMOS [38]. Calidum 19:41, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support—I'm surprised to see this issue still playing out. It was resolved many years ago. Generic vs titular. DOWNCASE. Tony (talk) 23:29, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support per WP:TITLEFORMAT and MOS:JOBTITLES. The onus is on those who oppose this move to propose a change to one of these rules. Until a change is made by consensus, either modifying one of the rules or by adding an exception that applies to these articles, the clear meaning of these policies requires us to make these moves. YBG (talk) 23:36, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the style guide is clear here, as well as consistency with other pages. power~enwiki (π, ν) 14:25, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support agree that the style guide of "general mention" applies to these situations. Xinbenlv(t) please notify me with {{ping}} 22:22, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support per MOS:JOBTITLES, which mandates that these terms be lower case when used generically. Candido (talk) 22:28, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • SupportThese and all similarly titled articles should be brought into conformity with WP:MOS and the various other manuals of style. Drdpw (talk) 22:48, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This follows from MOS:JOBTITLES, and is consistent with a clear majority of RS usage. Also, consensus has supported this direction over the course of many RMs. Looking at the history of RMs involving MOS:JOBTITLES, there have been many involving titles of the form "List of Xs of Y" that have gone from uppercase job title to lowercase (especially in the last several months, but going back as far as 2017), but I have found zero that have gone in the opposite direction (despite some nominations). Colin M (talk) 23:18, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Same reasons as above. --Pjoona11 (talk) 02:57, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong neutral as the guy who closed the last move request. I'll be thrilled to see any consensus either way. Ten points to the proposer for this enormous multi-move. Red Slash 03:05, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: It's what our style guide says. We are talking about a bunch people who had that title; a bunch of presidents. SchreiberBike | ⌨  03:43, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Oppose: These sort of titles should be capitalized. WP:MOS should be overturned in these sort of cases to capitalize the title, particularly when the office is held by one person at a time.Theoallen1 (talk) 19:55, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – The MOS guidance on job titles, including presidents, has been reaffirmed in several discussions over the last couple years; examples of use have been refined and have gained consensus. Time to enforce consistency and stop the endless debates. — JFG talk 11:52, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Does anyone know if there has ever been an attempt to change the MOS either (a) to allow these JOBTITLES to be capitalized or (b) to allow WP:TITLEFORMAT to be capitalized differently than in running text? YBG (talk) 22:17, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, with regard to (a). Until 26 June 2018, during the course of the previous RM discussion about this article, WP:MOS/Biography, the MOS subpage that many people are citing, had a section titled "Occupational titles" that was fairly short and straightforward. It said, in part: "Standard or commonly used names of an office are treated as proper nouns or noun phrases (The British Prime Minister is Theresa May; Hirohito was Emperor of Japan; Louis XVI was King of France)." That was in sync with both WP:MOS/Capital letters (another subpage) and with the main WP:MOS page. The Biography subpage was then changed to its current wording with minimal discussion. Also on 26 June 2018, the MOS:JOBTITLES redirect was changed from pointing to the unchanged Capital Letters subpage to the newly changed Biography subpage. Prior to the changes, it was expected that a proper noun like President of the United States would be capitalized (while generic use of the common noun president would not be), and there was no prohibition on the common practice of pluralizing proper nouns. Station1 (talk) 00:27, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    My personal recollection is that, taken as a whole, the MoS guidance has not changed substantially, although there was some clarification about a year ago led by SMcCandlish. There was Talk page discussion at the time, which I would not personally call "minimal". I'm surprised to see the example "The British Prime Minister is Theresa May". I don't recall that example, and I wonder how long it was there. The other two examples seem OK, as they appear to be singular uses of a formal title, but "British Prime Minister" does not seem to be a proper formal title, so it seems incorrect. None of those three involve the plural issue. Those examples do not describe membership in classes. Examples of incorrect usage would be "Hirohito was an Emperor of Japan" or "Louis XVI was a King of France" or "Louis XVI was the last of the Kings of France". —BarrelProof (talk) 01:22, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Re changing WP:TITLEFORMAT to use title-case titles instead of sentence case, a couple of editors have brought it up, but I can't recall a serious discussion of it. It wouldn't resolve the underlying styling questions, but would keep them out of RM (title) discussions; that would probably not be a net win. And for title-case titles to work, we'd either need to make a ton of alternate-case redirects, or make links case-insensitive, to make in-text links work (like the way the first letter is already case insensitive to allow in-text linking without capping the first letter). This would be a huge disruptive change for many reasons. It was decided early on not to go that way. Dicklyon (talk) 02:19, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per User:Surtsicna and others. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:28, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I think what might be confusing to some is that phrase is so often encountered capitalized. However, this is because the context is usually to introduce a particular president of the United States, as in President of the United States Donald Trump, or the context uses title case, like the title of a book or an article in a publication that uses title case in its titles. For better or for worse we use sentence case in our WP titles, so neither reason to capitalize presidents applies here. --В²C ☎ 19:36, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. In these titles, "presidents" and "vice presidents" are descriptions, not proper nouns. There are no plural job titles, there is President of... but never Presidents of.... Per the policies/guidelines already cited above, these renames are supported by community consensus. Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there  03:59, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support per MOS:JOBTITLES. This is how it is done in most major style guides including the Chicago Manual of Style, which our own MOS borrows heavily from. CThomas3 (talk) 11:12, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

In these recent edits

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

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

Sortable table

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed restructuring to accomodate sorting

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

Elected presidents only

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 19 December 2019

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 20 December 2019

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_presidents_of_the_United_States&oldid=931610339"