Talk:List of presidents of the United States

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)

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)

No, they didn't seek any office after their service as president. GoodDay (talk) 04:09, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

• Comment Maybe "after serving as President" isn't Encyclopedic enough because Ford, Carter, and H.W. losing should be included somewhere. Exempting folks that lose while Incumbent seems like SYNTH. Some of y'all I know are going to want to add something about Trump losing an election if he's a one-term President... I'm just saying the premise is a little off to me. -- Sleyece (talk) 00:39, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

We'll add Trump if he loses in 2020 & later runs again in 2024, or runs for any other political office. GoodDay (talk) 00:45, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

• Note Since mid-June 2020 the only table in the "Subsequent public office" section is one listing "former presidents who held another U.S. federal office after serving as president".

• Correction It says 44 have served as president and then lists 45. Seems like we should include the most recent president, no matter how controversial his time in office has been? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.253.189.45 (talk) 00:24, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

The 44 does include him. Remember Grover Cleveland served two non-consecutive terms.Xenologer48 (talk) 18:18, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

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)

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

Semi-protected edit request on 20 December 2019

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

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

John Tyler portrait change

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

Agreed. GoodDay (talk) 19:54, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I also agree. Let's change it. YBG (talk) 21:49, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I have no particular objection, but sources seem to say the current portrait was taken ca. 1845 [38] and the proposed one created ca. 1860-65 [39]. Or am I reading them wrong? Station1 (talk) 23:04, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Must've been a misprint or something along those lines, I tried digging into it but couldn't find anything. Seems to be a repeated thing, plus Tyler being a fairly unpopular and obscure president probably didn't help. I'm sure, though, the proposed one was definitely not after the current one, especially more than a decade-older, considering the apparent age difference in both. Tyler's official portrait looks to be based on the current one, and that was finished in 1859, so that's another point. --MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 07:11, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Going by my John Tyler book (written by Gary May), the proposed image is of a younger Tyler. GoodDay (talk) 14:57, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Looks like we got agreement here, I'll be switching the portraits now. --MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 20:47, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

head of state and head of govt?

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

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

Impeachments

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

In this list article, it is proper to mention when presidents die in office either from assassination or from natural causes, but we do not exhaustively list all attempted assassinations nor all serious presidential illnesses. The attempted assassination of Reagan is significant as was Eisenhower's heart attack, but neither rate a mention in this list article.

Similarly, impeachment in this list is significant when it has an impact on the tenure of office. Hence, we mention impeachment in connection with Nixon's resignation, but we make no mention of the impeachments of Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton, much less the attempted impeachments of Tyler, Cleveland, Hoover, Truman, Nixon, Reagan and Bush 41. YBG (talk) 04:01, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

It's obvious that there is some sort of presidential campaign-related activity going on to insert impeachment everywhere all of a sudden. This issue is popping up in countless pages that are rather tangentially or thinly-related to the matter (and that up to now never had such discussions). It looks like American politics-related vandalism (yet again). Paid trolls and bots just can't keep their dirty hands off of Wikipedia and it will get worse this new year. --Loginnigol (talk) 16:06, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Might be WP:PAID, but seems just as likely to be overly enthusiastic political junkies that don't understand WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE and so want the latest news infatuation to be present in every tangentially-related article. Sounds a lot like the 24-hour news cycle.

But blatant attempts for WP:POV-based scope expansion should be carefully watched and resisted. YBG (talk) 07:30, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Of course there are plenty overly enthusiastic cases. However the exact problem suddenly popping up in way too many unrelated pages is what gives me the suspicion that this is some sort of action by operatives. Apparently even the campaigners themselves are on Wikipedia editing stuff (Pete Buttigieg is allegedly on wiki under the pseudonym "Streeling"). --Loginnigol (talk) 13:50, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps the issue should be broached in some discussion board? YBG (talk) 17:48, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

The paragraph concerns presidents who left office intra-term (ie. not at the end of their four-Year term). Someday, when an impeached president is convicted at trial and removed from office, that early departure from office along with the reason will be noted (presuming the article still contains such information at that time). Drdpw (talk) 18:54, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

In agreement with the others. Unless a president is convicted/removed from office & thus suddenly ending his tenure? there's no need to mention impeachment in this article. GoodDay (talk) 19:02, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Proper treatment of "Prior Office"

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

I have restored the status quo ante of the Trump entry and the note text which are consistent with each other and with the consensus arrived at before the 2016 election. I didn't take the time to research the history of the note text but simply adapted the text from the VP list where interestingly the non-governmental exception is less needed. The uniqueness of Trump is still there although shared with Taylor, Grant, Hoover and Eisenhower. By WP:BRD I am not categorically opposed to a change but think it should come after a new consensus is reached on this talk page. YBG (talk) 12:34, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

See Talk:List of presidents of the United States/Archive 8 § Templates revised with columns reordered for the pre-election consensus. The footnote change came later, if memory serves. YBG (talk) 13:13, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

See Talk:List of presidents of the United States/Archive 7 § Layout for the president-elect for the discussion that led to the discussion. YBG (talk) 13:42, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Military commands, seem to be a grey area. GoodDay (talk) 13:22, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Yea, there's a difference between "no prior elected office" and "no prior state or federal office". It is a definite distinction but not one that IMO merits undue emphasis. YBG (talk) 13:42, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

YBG - thanks for all the additional background. I didn't realize how much that this had been discussed in the past, although it's not surprising. IMO, the prior office info should remain, without regard to elected or not. And, I don't think military commands are a grey area at all - all members of the military are "officers," either commissioned, or non-commissioned. And all take the oath. Jeffme (talk) 03:56, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Ima take this opportunity to argue against the inclusion of this column at all. It is sometimes subjective, doesn't really add much, certainly doesn't explain why people became president except in a few obvious cases (Ford), etc. --Golbez (talk) 15:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree. This is not such basic info that it needs to be in a list. Removing it will also make the list less cluttered. Station1 (talk) 20:45, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

I would support removing the column entirely, as it adds little pertinent information, and as removing it would also make the list less cluttered. I will also note that individuals' prior office information can readily found at: List of presidents of the United States by military rank ◆ List of presidents of the United States by military service ◆ List of presidents of the United States by other offices held ◆ List of presidents of the United States by previous experience. Drdpw (talk) 20:43, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

In agreement with eliminating the column, if we do the same at the List of vice presidents of the United States article. GoodDay (talk) 20:49, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm in favor of keeping it. It's great context for where our Presidents have come from, in terms of experience or qualifications. As for it containing information that could be found elsewhere... isn't that pretty true of all lists? Perhaps it's not essential to be on this list, or it warrants a separate page, but the fact that you'd have to search across several of the lists Drdpw provided (TY!), sort of proves the value of having all types of prior office on this page. Jeffme (talk) 03:56, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

A separate note - should this column remain, and Pres. Trump's entry also remain as status quo, suggest it be modified to reflect that he was not the Chairman of the Trump Organization until at least 1973. In 1973, Fred Trump was listed as the chairman in a lawsuit against the Trump Org. I searched, but was unable to find a source citation for when he was appointed as chairman. Jeffme (talk) 03:56, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

Option #3, is my preferred choice. GoodDay (talk) 15:22, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

@GoodDay: Actually, I wasn't listing options. My proposal was to do all three things. I was expecting that 1 and 2 would be considered by some to be prerequisites for 3. It sounds to me that you would be willing to implement 3 without 1 and 2. But I presume you wouldn't object to doing 1 and 2 in addition. YBG (talk) 02:20, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Oh. Yeah, implement all three plans. GoodDay (talk) 02:23, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

I think your proposal is a good one YBG. Drdpw (talk) 12:41, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm definitely in favor of #3. I don't think #1 and #2 are necessary prerequisites but certainly have no objection if someone wants to do that. Station1 (talk) 05:39, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I thought it was a list of options as well and would support 3, but if it's a package deal, go for it. I don't care if the data's on Wikipedia as long as it's not here. --Golbez (talk) 04:39, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, I did it. And a whole lot more. Do what thou wilt with my work. --Golbez (talk) 19:04, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

It's good that you removed the 'prior office' bit, but you also added other features, without discussion. I had to revert everything, because I couldn't parse them. GoodDay (talk) 19:15, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Oh well! [also it was good I did the other things] --Golbez (talk) 19:17, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

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

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

Images used by LTA

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

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

Adding Years and Days

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

Too trivial. GoodDay (talk) 19:53, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, that's just like your opinion man. I don't think it's too trivial. It gives someone a lot quicker understanding how long they were in office. Zdawg1029 (talk) 01:31, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

It's just not necessary. Many of the US presidents have served either 1 full term or 2 full terms & so we'd only be repeating the same numbers. Besides, we already have List of presidents of the United States by time in office, which deals with this. GoodDay (talk) 01:35, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

There are many Presidents however who did not serve one full term, or two full terms. If you want to go down that road, look at the very next column to the right, next to the pictures of all of them. It says the years they were born, but underneath those dates it says the number of years that amounts to in smaller type. Why not get rid of that? I mean the dates are right there. Anyone can do the math should they please. It's just trivial isn't it? It's called making it easier for the reader. Zdawg1029 (talk) 05:46, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, thank you for proposing we remove the lifespan. ;) But seriously, I hate that, it adds nothing to an understanding of the subject, and neither does the specific number of days they were in office. --Golbez (talk) 14:50, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I've no objections to 'removing' the lifespan years. GoodDay (talk) 15:16, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I too have no objection to removing the lifespan years. I do however, object to adding the number of years plus days to the table, as it would add information that can readily be found in a separate list article (which is why I also support removing the “Prior office” column from this list article). Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 16:36, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

You people are out of your minds and high on Wiki-power. Zdawg1029 (talk) 22:54, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

If we were "high on Wiki-power" we'd've deleted it already .--Golbez (talk) 23:08, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

lol I keep thinking about this. Out of our minds and high on wiki-power? OK champ, you want to call me mad with power, you're gonna get it. --Golbez (talk) 20:53, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

I'M MAD WITH POWER HAHAHAHA --Golbez (talk) 11:51, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

You're not even American. What do you care about this article? Zdawg1029 (talk) 23:13, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

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

Jimmy Carter Photo

The Current Image of Jimmy Carter on the Article that is grainy and in low quality.

Another Image of Jimmy Carter that is in higher Resolution with less pixels and less grainy.

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

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

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

I don't see a weird green dot & his eyes look normal. GoodDay (talk) 20:16, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

I prefer the color/lighting of the current image that we use for him. I will note that it's also the current lead image of his article. If it's good enough for the lead image of his main biography article it should be good enough for this list. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:28, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Removal of life (birth and death) years

I have noticed that sometime during the last few months, the long standing birth and death dates were removed from the table as well as what prior offices the presidents held. The table has been streamlined for the worse, and if you look at this (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_presidents_of_the_United_States&offset=&limit=500&action=history) you will see an unstable and more active article history with lots of reversions in the last few months. For reference, this is how the article looked like in October (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_presidents_of_the_United_States&oldid=921455113), The table had looked like that for many years before this year. what exactly has happened? Lochglasgowstrathyre (talk) 19:52, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

We already have articles that deal with the birth/death dates of US presidents & vice presidents. GoodDay (talk) 20:04, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

What happened was, I removed extraneous trivia from this article. Their lifespans are not relevant to this article. Some extraneous trivia was added back while valuable information was removed, but that's on y'all. --Golbez (talk) 20:44, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

The prior positions tab should've been kept, that's mainly what crippled this article and made it look mediocre as a result. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 05:24, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Disagree. Adds nothing to an understanding of the subject, just as lifespans add nothing to an understanding of the subject. --Golbez (talk) 13:17, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Lifespans and prior positions are incomparable, the positions give you background into the individual's political, military, and business careers. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 02:47, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

They tell you either their immediate previous job - which may have nothing to do with why they were elected - or their "biggest" job, which is typically subjective. Lists like this should concern themselves only with: Who was in the office; how did they get there; why did they leave. For example: James Madison. Was he elected because he was Secretary of State, or because he was James Madison, one of the main founding fathers? Had Hillary Clinton won, what had more impact on her winning: Being Secretary of State, Senator from New York, either first lady post, or her work with the Clinton Foundation? Was John Quincy Adams elected because he ... okay I seriously have nothing against State, it's just that all these examples were SecStates. But was he elected for that, or being John Adams son? Was George W. Bush elected for being Governor of Texas, or for being George H. W. Bush's son? Was William Henry Harrison really elected because of his awesome job as ambassador to Colombia? And does it matter that John Tyler was Vice President for 33 days, when his real previous post was that he'd been a private citizen for five years, and a senator before that? My point is: It's nearly circumstantial to their post. It adds little, if anything, to an understanding of the subject. TBH I'd be more in favor of including their state - and only state - of origin, since that has constitutional ramifications wrt voting. --Golbez (talk) 03:46, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

You're assuming "prior position" means "this is why this guy got elected" when its just a biographical illustration of their job before becoming president, nothing more, nothing less. I agree with you on including state information, though, but it should be both their state of origin and the state they later affiliated with when becoming president. Such as Eisenhower being born in Texas but affiliating with Pennsylvania and New York during his two runs for the presidency, or Donald Trump being born in New York, affiliating with the state in 2016, but having switched affiliation for Florida in 2020. We should include both so as to not mislead the reader or confuse them. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 04:30, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

If it has nothing to do with why they became president, then why include it? And no, later affiliation wouldn't be relevant since what matters is what they were elected from. Then again, I feel the same about party affiliation, and some people seem to undo that too. --Golbez (talk) 13:10, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

You don't seem to comprehend what I'm suggesting. Trump was elected from New York, he switched to Florida, if he wins in 2020 he'll have been elected from Florida. Its not a hard concept to understand. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 04:29, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Right. It should note that he's from New York. If he wins in 2020, it should say Florida. But you keep on with that there condescension, I think we're done here. Y'all have a good day now. --Golbez (talk) 05:15, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

@Golbez, sorry the birth and death dates are relevant in this article. The listing of presidents provides a snapshot of their lives, and it is nice to see how much longer a president lived after completing the term as a president, or as an FYI James Polk was the last president born in the 1700s. The associated article on vice presidents still show the birth and death dates, so why can't this article on presidents show it like it did for several years?! Dkf12 (talk) 17:36, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

It can, I just don't want it. Others might agree with me, iunno. And I disagree - what does it add to an understanding of the list of people who have been president to know that James Polk was a toddler in 1799? And yes, Hoover and Carter have both had extremely lengthy and fruitful post-presidencies, but that has nothing to do with this list. --Golbez (talk) 13:41, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

It's not an issue if James Polk was a toddler in 1799, though in reality four year olds are not considered toddlers. It's more that one can see at a glance that James Polk was the last president born in the 1700s and Dwight D. Eisenhower was the last one born in the 1800s. Likewise, George Washington was the first one born in the 1700s, Milard Filemore was the first one in the 1800s, and Lyndon B. Johnson was the first one in the 1900s. Plus, one can see how long presidents lived after serving, such as 31 years for Herbert Hover and now 44 years for Jimmy Carter. Without the dates, one will have to look elsewhere, maybe outside of Wikipedia. Now, the birth dates and death dates if applicable was in this article for many years and for quite some time, the month and day was included. It is a mystery why the years had to be taken out now. Dkf12 (talk) 22:09, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

You haven't demonstrated that these add something to an understanding of the subject, though. What one does before or after becoming president is not relevant to a list of presidents (unless of course it directly impacted their entry on the list, like a mention on List of Governors of Arkansas that Bill Clinton resigned to be president.) It's relevant to their articles, sure, but not this one. That Carter has lived so long has no bearing on his entry in this list. I'm sure there are other lists that deal with the trivia of presidential lifespans and retirements; in fact I'm positive of it, for some reason a lot of people care about that. And I personally find it fascinating that 3 of the last 4 presidents were born in 1946 - but this isn't a list of fascinating facts. All that is helpfully shunted off into separate articles. I'm 100% aware that people can reasonably disagree with me, which is why I've pledged not to war on this article - but I'm just one man. GoodDay appears to agree with me, and I can't speak for what actions they'll take. --Golbez (talk) 13:01, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

We're not putting those dates back into the article. GoodDay (talk) 22:25, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

It's still a mystery why the years were removed when they had been present for a very long time. I'll use sources outside of Wikipedia to get what I need. My concern is how this impacts others out there. Dkf12 (talk) 00:21, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

My concern is that you're not getting the hint. No mystery. A few of us here wanted them removed & so we removed them. Now, please drop it & move on. GoodDay (talk) 00:55, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

The question is how many of the readers out there "wanted them removed". Dkf12 (talk) 01:40, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

We're not adding them back, so stop complaining about it & move on. GoodDay (talk) 01:46, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

In addition to this, we should remove the party, dates of presidency, and vice presidents' names. They add nothing to the article, which - let us remember - is "List of presidents". Not party membership, dates, or Veeps. Actually we should take out the pictures, too, and that huge lead. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:47, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Articles like this should concern themselves with who was in the office, how they got there, and why they left. The dates are relevant. The party, unfortunately, is relevant. The Vice President is relevant, but sure, you could argue against that if you like. I also agree that we could do without the pictures, but you know how Wikipedians like their pictures. The intro is relevant to establish the above terms. If you had asked about any of this, we may have been able to help, considering this is your first edit here in at least a year, so your uninvited snark on a talk page you haven't remotely interacted with before now is certainly conduct unbecoming. Thanks for your interest. --Golbez (talk) 03:16, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Just quickly pointing out that I came to this article to find that particular information (I wanted to see how many former presidents were alive at a particular date), and will now have to find that information on a different site, which is slightly less convenient, and I feel often less trustworthy. Not sure whether other people ever do the same, but just feel it's of relevance that it happens occasionally. Setting that aside though, I'm slightly in favour of keeping them, for consistency if nothing else. Most other lists of national leaders (most lists of people in fact) on wikipedia have them.120.138.17.53 (talk)

Better than this article is the one designed for that very purpose, Living presidents of the United States. --Golbez (talk) 04:55, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Seeking input

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

Semi-protected edit request on 29 April 2020

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 1 June 2020

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

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

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

Permanent Semi-Protection

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

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

In agreement. GoodDay (talk) 00:05, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Sorting by length of full term

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

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

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

Presidents who left office, not a member of the party they came into office with.

Recommend we divide up the party colours again, in the John Tyler & Andrew Johnson entries, the way they used to be. GoodDay (talk) 00:30, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

That could work. Johnson did rejoin the Democrats near the end of his term. -- Sleyece (talk) 02:13, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Don't forget AJ. GoodDay (talk) 15:45, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

JQ Adams as well, as the Democratic-Republican Party disintegrated after 1825. Also, as this issue generated much discussion in the past, quick changes should not be made now. Drdpw (talk) 15:53, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

If JQ Adams had won reelection, we would've had his second term as a National Republican. GoodDay (talk) 15:55, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Makes sense. Regarding Jackson, probably OK to leave "Democratic" alone, as the Jacksonian faction of his 1st term became the Democratic Party of his second. Drdpw (talk) 18:09, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

How was that? Reverted edit was an updated code of previous John Tyler. I also tried to update the em height before edit conflicts. -- Sleyece (talk) 16:21, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Before you make such changes, it would be best to get a consensus here first. PS - I've made this discussion into an RFC, to attract more input. GoodDay (talk) 16:27, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

• Strong Support of OP w/ the additional recommendation of adjusting the em height of Abe Lincoln to 11 em Republican/ 1 em National Union. -- Sleyece (talk) 17:11, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

style="background-color:Template:Republican Party (United States)/meta/color" |	Republican
style="background-color:Template:National Union Party (United States)/meta/color" |	National Union

Here's a reference table of what that would look like in action. -- Sleyece (talk) 18:12, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

No to varying the height of individual cells in the Party column. Note the height uniformity in the Election and the Vice President columns. Drdpw (talk) 18:41, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Off-topic inter-personal disputation

WP:HA User's disagreement has nothing to do with "uniformity". -- Sleyece (talk) 19:57, 15 August 2020 (UTC) @Sleyece: You are incorrect; the disagreement expressed is solely about "uniformity" as stated. I have nothing against you and am certainly not out to prevent you from making edits to U.S. political articles. I always assume your edits are made in good faith, even when I have an issue with them. Drdpw (talk) 21:08, 15 August 2020 (UTC) I know you assume my edits are in good faith, but you treat me as if I'm too stupid or unworthy to edit U.S. politics articles... A lot of ice pick lobotomies were performed assuming good faith, too. -- Sleyece (talk) 21:19, 15 August 2020 (UTC) Please do not cite behavioral policies like WP:HA when people simply disagree with you. And article talk pages, much less RfCs on article talk pages, are not the venue for interpersonal disputations. User-talk pages and WP:DR venues exist for a reason.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:27, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support restoring layout of Party column to how it was as of February 20, 2020.

@Golbez: specifically inviting your input as you changed the column to its current layout.

Drdpw (talk) 21:08, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support restoring to layout of February 20, 2020. I don't agree with fiddling with the cell heights, which is simply going to look messy and is likely to result in readability problems for some.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:23, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Oof, I hadn't thought of readability issues. I no longer support weighting the split based on time in office. -- Sleyece (talk) 21:30, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Sleyece, before including the proposition if/when it does get voted on, please do not change Tyler's portrait as you in your revised edit. We previously discussed that on this page. Thank you. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 11:15, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

For the record, I did that by accident; it was part of some old code I copied into the new edit. -- Sleyece (talk) 23:45, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

• My feeling on this is, it should only reflect what party they were elected from. "switching parties" or "joining" another party is not necessarily an official act, especially not one that always has a specific date. I would include only the parties they were elected from, with a footnote indicating that they began caucusing or officially representing a different party at a certain point in their administration. --Golbez (talk) 19:06, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

But, if you insist on keeping it, then I agree that there should be zero "weighting" for the time spent with each party; split it evenly. --Golbez (talk) 19:07, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support per above. ~ HAL333 19:58, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
• Strong support for the February 20, 2020 layout. Altanner1991 (talk) 20:04, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
• Comment How many people need to vote "Support" or "Strong Support" before we can declare this a consensus? -- Sleyece (talk) 23:01, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

It's not a matter of numbers for/against, it's about consensus (which IMO has been achieved).Drdpw (talk) 00:02, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Look, admins putting off closing this RFC because they don't like the consensus is unlikely to change it... Can someone PLEASE take some action? -- Sleyece (talk) 16:09, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

•  Awaiting administrative action: Would an uninvolved editor, preferably an admin, please review this discussion, and, if appropriate, render a decision. Thanks.Drdpw (talk) 00:02, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
• Strong support as per the others, amazed this was ever changed. VeritasVox (talk) 20:54, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Alright there's been no action taken on this yet and all the input for a month has been approval of the change. I don't think it's too much of a stretch to go ahead and implement this now. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 21:37, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Reckon so. GoodDay (talk) 21:41, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm unable to work the proposal into the current table, someone who can please do and we'll see if that works out. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 22:19, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I can do it; it's tedious because one bit of data in the wrong place can ruin the whole table. I won't make the change until someone closes this thread, though. -- Sleyece (talk) 16:25, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Consensus for proposal is overwhelming, thread closure isn't necessary. GoodDay (talk) 16:31, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Per your statement, I will make the consensus changes later. I won't have the time to do work that time consuming until after I put my son to bed. -- Sleyece (talk) 16:45, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

I made consensus changes for President Tyler; I elected not to do the same for J.Q. Adams or Andrew Johnson because I haven't seen evidence that there is consensus for them. More specifically, I don't think editors agree if it should be denoted in the list if the POTUS left the party due to it's dissolution. I feel like that question, if answered, would require an entirely new RfC. -- Sleyece (talk) 03:13, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

The RfC included Andrew Johnson in its premise, and was titled in a way that implies any president who left their party during their term. Abraham Lincoln shows the change of party affiliation, not sure why others would be different. Why would we need a separate RfC for J.Q. Adams? If they left their party due to its dissolution this can be placed in a note. Altanner1991 (talk) 04:28, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Andrew Johnson was included in the RfC, but his situation and Adams' is different. I haven't seen consensus for that change yet, but I'll make the change soon if it appears. Specifically, Tyler and Lincoln changed parties as a result of their own choices as President; Quincy Adams and A. Johnson left their parties as a result of forces external to themselves. It's just WP:NOTQUITEYET. -- Sleyece (talk) 11:00, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

I can see the distinction, but we can explain that via notes. I assume you'll have to done for Quincy Adams and A. Johnson as well soon? MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 19:42, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll make the changes for A. Johnson and J.Q. Adams before bed tonight. It seems there is enough consensus for that; just make sure the notes are thorough. (The note I added recently for Adams is insufficient if we're going to split his party affiliation) -- Sleyece (talk) 20:59, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Yeah I agree with Altanner1991 here. We didn't agree on the different cell heights either, you proposed that but most users here (or all of them, really) weren't voting for that. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 09:45, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Cell heights are the same. It just looks staggered on the table. I'll try to fix it, though. -- Sleyece (talk) 10:41, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Some of the users in this thread don't understand how CSS works, so I'll explain.. The consensus was for split terms to have an even 6em-6em split; That's what I did. Now I've adjusted the em height to a staggered 8em-2em split so the the table cell visually looks even for Tyler and Lincoln. Is that what y'all wanted? I can change it back, but coding CSS height evenly never looks even in the final product; It's counter intuitive. -- Sleyece (talk) 10:52, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

The way it looks now is fine. The thing about Lincoln is he was still a Republican, his "party change" was just a coalition ticket, whilst A. Johnson actively tried to establish it as an actual party, so one being bigger than the other is justifiable. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 19:40, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

The consensus was no weighted heights for split party; I'm sticking to that no matter what's "justifiable". We can explain the rest with notes. -- Sleyece (talk) 21:06, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

What I need to know is do y'all want the em height even or the visual height even in the table? -- Sleyece (talk) 21:14, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

What is the difference between "em" height even and "visual" height even?

The proposal seemed to move to a consensus for equal cell heights. So far, both each Presidential entry, and each Vice-Presidential entry, is using equal cell heights, and therefore so should the political parties. Aside from John Tyler, there is also Abraham Lincoln showing varying heights and this was agreed IMO within this discussion. There is also just Richard Nixon showing a varying height formatting, probably left over from previous edits. Again none of the others are using what could be varying heights, maybe because equal heights are easier right now. Altanner1991 (talk) 21:32, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

The visual height and the cell height are the same thing; em height is that height as its coded. Basically, if it's coded even then the cell height will be uneven and vice versa. -- Sleyece (talk) 22:42, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Ok thank you for explaining that. Altanner1991 (talk) 03:02, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

So, the cell heights need to be 6em-6em for these changes because all other cells in the table are coded as a devision of 12 (either 12em, 6em-6em, 4em-4em-4em, or 3em-3em-3em-3em). For the changes to be standardized with other consensus, I won't be adjusting cell heights again -- 09:25, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Veep vacancy dates

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

As I understand stand it, prior to adoption of A-20, terms of members of Congress ended, not by law or statute, but by custom at midnight March 3/4. Now, concerning pre-1933 VP vacancies, they only ended when a new VP took office (end of vacant term is beside the point); therefore, March 4 is correct. Drdpw (talk) 20:10, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

I'd argue that about the congressional terms pre-20th amendment, per the records of lame-duck Congresses doing work during the morning of March 4. But, that's another discussion :) GoodDay (talk) 20:15, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

They did so, I believe, by continuing the March 3 legislative day. Drdpw (talk) 20:33, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

There's a lot of those pre-20th amendment representatives & senators BPs, which need correction on their dates, from March 3 to March 4. GoodDay (talk) 20:38, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm fine with that as a compromise, except for the fact that the modern concept of an Eastern Time Zone was changed and established in 1938 based on railroad stop times. Some of these vacancies predate railroads themselves. -- Sleyece (talk) 20:50, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

March 4, is the way to go :) GoodDay (talk) 21:28, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

As I stated above, March 4 is correct. Adding "until Noon EST" to the date of any pre-20th Amendment vacancy is, however, unnecessary and, policy wise, original research, as such wording isn’t in any reliable sources that I’ve seen. Drdpw (talk) 21:12, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

FDR photograph proposal

Proposed photograph

Typically on Wikipedia, we like to use color photographs over B&W photographs. So, with that in mind, I would like to propose we use this photograph instead of the currently used one. It has several advantages.

1. It was still taken while he was president.

2. Almost all articles on FDR use this photograph including his main articles on Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons.

3. Somewhat obviously, this photograph is in color and the current one is in B&W.

So, what do you guys think? Relevation Animations (talk) 16:45, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Personally, I've always been against this photo being used to universally portray FDR. It was taken in 1944 near the end of his 12-year long presidency, and he would die several months after it was taken. It doesn't accurately represent him throughout his presidency, rather, it shows him near the end of it in the ill state that it led him to. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 22:52, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Fair point, however, It’s not like using aged photographs is a particularly uncommon occurrence on this list. Look at Q. Adams and Van Buren. Their photographs were taken decades after their presidencies, and we used them not because they were accurate representations of their time as president, but because they were close enough and more importantly, they were high quality. The current portrait for FDR is grainy, and this new proposal is much more high quality. And to add more fuel to the fire, I noticed that towards the end of 2019, this new proposal was being used, and I couldn’t find a discussion about the change to the current image in the archives. This means that the image was changed without consensus and thus should be reverted. Thoughts? Relevation Animations (talk) 16:45, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

True. However, in the cases of Quincy Adams and Van Buren, they look remarkably similar in their photographs to their portraits they were depicted in during their presidency. It's similar to why we don't use Andrew Jackson's photograph, cause he aged so bad he didn't resemble himself during his presidency anymore, unlike Quincy Adams and Van Buren. I'm not strongly against this photo of FDR like I would be for Jackson's, even though I don't agree with it's depiction being used universally. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 21:14, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

So, since FDR didn’t age poorly during his later years like Jackson did, you would not be opposed to switching the B&W photo with this new proposal. Relevation Animations (talk) 23:49, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm not particularly supportive or opposed to it at this point. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 03:56, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Oppose. First of all your premise is incorrect that "we like to use color photographs over B&W photographs". That mindset has been criticized several times in your edits. We use the best quality image that is most representative of how the subject looked, not whether it is color or B&W. In this case, I agree with MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken that the color image shows Roosevelt when he was in poor health and is not representative of his presidency. Sundayclose (talk) 00:20, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Acting presidents

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

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

Minor error with Nixon

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

True, but difficult to accomplish due to Agnew being reelected but resigning mid-2nd term. I can tinker with it a bit. Drdpw (talk) 04:23, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

H.W. Bush portrait proposal

Current one

Proposed one

Essentially the same photo, however my proposal is not slanted like the current one. It also is clearer on Bush's face and has colors toned to be less jarring to the reader. My proposed one has also been adopted by Bush's own article. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 04:01, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

The colors seem a little faded, but overall, it’s a better and more clear image, so I support the change. Relevation Animations (talk) 15:06, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Barack Obama presidential portrait

Currently the first picture is in use but the second picture is a lot better and more professional looking, plus it’s used on his own Wikipedia page, so why aren’t we using that one? Ciaran.london (talk) 12:25, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

First photo is best, as it keeps with the consistency of showing the presidents at bust level. GoodDay (talk) 19:45, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

New Fillmore image

I feel that we should change the image of Fillmore to this. It’s a more bust level photograph, it doesn’t show him as a grumpy old man like the current image, and it’s a more appropriate photograph for this list. Thoughts? The Image Editor (talk) 02:05, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I prefer the current image. BTW: Alec Baldwin would be perfect to play Fillmore, in a movie. GoodDay (talk) 15:00, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Do you have a reason for disliking my proposal? The Image Editor (talk) 19:56, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

His face in not in the same direction as his torso. GoodDay (talk) 21:46, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

That is a very niche and minor criticism that most readers will not notice. Besides, this is also true for Cleveland’s image, and people seem cool with keeping that image. I actually kinda like the fact that his head is turned. It makes it look more professional. The Image Editor (talk) 23:25, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I prefer the current image. The Image Editor, I'm afraid you don't have any better grasp of what "most readers will not notice" than any of the rest of us. The reason provided by GoodDay is perfectly legitimate from the standpoint of photography, certainly as legitimate as the preferences you express. Sundayclose (talk) 16:24, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

I prefer the proposed image because the eyes are facing forward. The side-eye glance of the current image is off-putting and strange. It doesn't look like a formal portrait. AmateurEditor (talk) 04:49, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Revert

@GoodDay: May I ask why you reverted my edits? Esszet (talk) 01:54, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

It wasn't constructive. GoodDay (talk) 01:58, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

What do you mean? Esszet (talk) 18:21, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

New Grant image

I feel like we should change the image for Ulysses S. Grant. The current image has a weird facial expression, has somewhat mediocre color contrast, and overall feels subpar compared to the other images around it. While I will concur that it is a serviceable image for this list, I think that my proposal is a better image. It has better color contrast, it was taken in the middle of the 1870s, so it’s a more accurate representation of Grant during his presidency, it’s used FAR more widely on Wikipedia, and it’s both marked as a featured image, and is considered the most valuable image of Grant on Wikimedia Commons. While I don’t think the current image is that bad, I still think that my proposal is a slightly better image for this list specifically. We tend to use the highest quality image for each president. Well, for Grant it is my proposal. Thoughts? The Image Editor (talk) 23:37, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Why do say it was taken in the middle 1870s? The Library of Congress labels it as between 1870 and 1880, so it might be post-Presidency. Station1 (talk) 01:19, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 November 2020

Add Joseph R. Biden But As A Prediction For 46th President. Because Biden Only Needs To Win Nevada To Win The Election. A State He Leads In. WikiMakersOfOurTime (talk) 17:45, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

• No. No rush. Drmies (talk) 17:45, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done – Biden, if he wins, will not become president until January 20, 2021; he will not be added to the table until 12:00 noon EST that day. Drdpw (talk) 18:04, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

I would disagree; once he's certified as a winner we can at least add him as president-elect. Even if he dies before taking office, at that point, he would have earned a spot. --Golbez (talk) 19:44, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

That is certainly a reason. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:49, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

I dove into the talk page archives . . . What was done in November 2016 was to add a subsection Incoming presidency with a one-row table with information about Donald Trump. If Joe Biden wins and we do the same thing this time (when the dust settles and Joe Biden is acknowledged by reliable sources as President-elect), the table would look like. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 21:20, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Presidency		President		Party		Election	Vice President
46	Begins January 20, 2021		Joe Biden	style="background-color:Template:Democratic Party (United States)/meta/color" |	Democratic	2020	Kamala Harris

No prob with me, since that's how we done it in 2016. GoodDay (talk) 21:43, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

That seems like a reasonable course of action. --Coemgenus (talk) 21:39, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 November 2020

Add Joe Biden please. Thanks AlexCruz289 (talk) 16:37, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

 Done – Drdpw (talk) 18:17, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 November 2020 (2)

Joe Biden Is Now POTUS!!!!!!!!! Add Him! WikiMakersOfOurTime (talk) 16:40, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

 Done – Drdpw (talk) 18:13, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 November 2020 (3)

acroospulle 16:52, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Since Joe Biden won the 2020 election. I'm making a request to add to the page of the presidents of the United States of America. acroospulle 16:52, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

 Done – Drdpw (talk) 18:13, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

President-elect Joe Biden?

Many news outlets have project Joe Biden the winner of the 2020 election, but the results have not been certified and are contested by the Donald Trump campaign. I think a note should be added to the president-elect section explaining the situation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrendonJH (talk • contribs) 18:06, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

 Done – Drdpw (talk) 18:13, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Restore old columns

So, is now an appropriate time to restore the "Previous office" column, which was a) encyclopedic, b) due, c) referenced, and d) interesting and relevant information? Seems to have been removed a few years ago because one of the entries might have been blank, or something, but we have a policy for that. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 19:56, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Actually, its removeal (which I supported) came after a lengthy discussion at the start of this year (2020). I would point out that individuals' prior office information can readily found at: List of presidents of the United States by military rank ◆ List of presidents of the United States by military service ◆ List of presidents of the United States by other offices held ◆ List of presidents of the United States by previous experience. Drdpw (talk) 20:28, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Ah, I see it now - funny, I could have sworn the column was removed after a debate four years ago; possibly it was discussed then, too. Ok, the removal was discussed in January by a small number of editors, and the information is available by clicking through several other articles. I'm at a loss to understand how scattering information through several articles is an improvement, but hey, consensus can change. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:43, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

a) It offered little to explain why someone was elected (Was Trump elected because he was president of the Trump Foundation? was William Henry Harrison elected because we was ambassador to Colombia? Was it Lincoln's single term in IL-7 that captured half the nation's heart? At best it applies to VPs who became president, and generals) and the years and numbering were extraneous. Also, it's subjective - do we include their "best known" office, or only their immediately previous office? It's simply not something that's best handled in a list format, you should rely on prose for that kind of info. b) "due"? d) Lots of things are interesting but they don't go in every article. We could include their hometown, lifespan, spouse, etc., all of which would be interesting to some people (and have been included in lists like this before) but are ultimately irrelevant for this list. --Golbez (talk) 15:54, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

WP:NOTPAPER. Why not include information that's available? WP is for the reader, not the editor. Including prior office wasn't/isn't there to explain why someone was elected. Nobody sait it was. It was there to tell you what the prior office held by a particular president wsa. Excluding material because it's covered in another article is possibly reason to look at merging the likes of List of presidents of the United States by other offices held (11,867 pageviews in the last 30 days) and List of presidents of the United States by previous experience (262,691 pageviews in the last 30 days) into this one (2.5 million pageviews in the last 30 days). Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 18:34, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Because not every tidbit of information belongs in every article? Yes, WP is for the reader, which is why we shouldn't inundate with irrelevant information that is more easily accessible in other articles. "It isn't there to explain why someone was elected" then why is it here? All that should be here is a list of the people in the office, the relevant information of how they were in that office (term, party affiliation, deputy, how they left, how they entered), and the information about said transitions (constitutional requirements, term limits, etc.) Or as I tend to put pithily, what the office was, who got there, and how. Everything else is extraneous to an understanding of the subject of "list of presidents of the United States". We could include all their children, especially the famous ones; we could say who their parents were; we could say that once, they helped lead the US to victory in a particular battle or war. But we don't. Because that's not relevant to this list, and IMO, neither is the previous office. The fact that one article has many many times more views than the other perhaps indicates that an infinitesimal percentage of the readers care about the subject; I of course realize it could be that an infinitesimal percentage of readers don't know the other article exists, but that's not exactly our fault, it's linked here. Also, the information is easy to aggregate as needed, along with life spans, places of birth and origin, etc., should one have an academic interest. --Golbez (talk) 04:26, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

I oppose restoring the old columns. GoodDay (talk) 05:35, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Why? Surtsicna (talk) 11:59, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

For the reasons that others have mentioned for their opposition. GoodDay (talk) 17:28, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

!votes don't count. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:28, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

what votes, i see a section full of discussion --Golbez (talk) 21:32, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

President Biden/Harris?

There is still pending states in the 2020 election and since networks don't decide the president, Biden should not be listed as the 46th president or president-elect.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:4010:2830:a859:6ad:5d27:616e (talk • contribs) 19:18, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

We follow reliable, secondary sources. They (virtual) all project Biden as president-elect so we do too.
SSSB (talk) 09:20, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

If the Associated Press is calling the election, and they are cautious to a fault, then I think the race has been decided. Trump would have to win back Georgia and Pennsylvania (where he is down 66,000 ballots) as well as either Michigan (where is currently trailing by almost 150,000 ballots) or Wisconsin (where Biden is up 20,000 ballots) or Arizona (down 18,000) to get reelected. True, the Supreme court could overturn the ballots received in Pennsylvania after election day, but their number is too small to make up the difference. -- Kndimov (talk) 16:50, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Andrew Jackson Portrait

Photographic Portraits were taken of Andrew Jackson during his lifetime. I think the painting portrait should be replaced with a photograph as that would make the formatting more consistent. This is especially true because his predecessor and successor are both shown in photographs. Please let me know what you think about my proposed replacement photographic portrait below.

Andrew Jackson Daguerrotype

This was taken a few years after he was president. But this is also true about the currently used portraits of John Quincy Adams and Martin Van Buren.