Talk:Franklin D. Roosevelt

Semi-protected edit request on 16 December 2014

Please add a link to FDR's presidential successor in the right column

Preceded by Herbert Hoover

Succeeded by Harry S. Truman

Atgion (talk) 03:38, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Done Cannolis (talk) 09:07, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

 Not done Sorry, but I just reverted on the basis of a similar change having been reverted earlier (although not by me) as an example of over-linking, which I think is the case, since Truman is linked just above as a vice-president. I had not seen this Talk page request. The linking should be discussed, at least. I've changed the request answered parameter back to No for now. Dhtwiki (talk) 11:25, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

If you read the over-linking policy, I think it specifically exempts this situation. Other US president articles (e.g., Reagan) include the repeated links. WP:OVERLINK: "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, links may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead." 66.71.50.186 (talk) 22:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

This isn't one of those cases- a link only needs to be used once within an infobox. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:24, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Discrepancy between Wikipedia articles re: pictures of FDR in a wheelchair

According to a sentence in this article "Only two photographs taken of FDR while he was in his wheelchair are known to exist;". However, in the Wikipedia article "Franklin D. Roosevelt's paralytic illness", there is a caption under one of these pictures which states "One of only three known photographs of Roosevelt in a wheelchair" Bunkyray5 (talk) 14:59, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

The FDR Library says that it owns three candid photos of FDR in a wheelchair, without exactly saying that that is an upper limit to how many exist. Dhtwiki (talk) 16:33, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I suppose we have to take them at their word. About 10 years ago, while researching a book, I went through the Library's entire photo collection. They knew of only two wheelchair photos at that time -- the two that Margaret Suckley took, both published in the book Closest Companion -- and they didn't have either of them. So whether they have since acquired the two Suckley photos, plus a third -- or whether they are talking about three entirely different photos -- quien sabe? My contact at the Library has retired, but I shall try to find out -- unless somebody already knows. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 06:46, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I changed it to three photographs. Rjensen (talk) 07:06, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, the correct answer could be five, as mentioned -- but for now, that'll do. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 13:02, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose mergingCriticism of Franklin D. Roosevelt into Franklin D. Roosevelt to create a single artile with a NPOV. if the article becomes too long we can create sub articles like "History of FDR" or "FDR stuff" or something. Bryce Carmony (talk) 00:46, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

FDR was (and still is) the target of an enormous amount of criticism, that's why we need a separate article on the topic. The FDR article itself is already very long. Another couple thousand words will be problematic. Rjensen (talk) 21:45, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey Rjensen I appreciate you weighing in with your viewpoint. I must respectfully disagree with you and here is why. the Article "Franklin D. Roosevelt" is required to be written in the Neutral Point of View (NPOV) which requires 3 things: 1- all information must be portrayed Fairly (saying the article is immune to anything we arbitraily call "criticism" is not fair to the reader ) 2- all information must be portrayed proportionately (by banning the "unflattering" proportions of the article, we are not giving the whole story to the ready) and 3- without Bias (which should come as no surprise, I think denying the reader of an accurate picture is showing a bias). NPOV is an important ideal for wikipedia. so important that it has a immunity clause that a consensus of editors cannot override it. and a supremacy clause that no other guideline can over ride it ( like WP:Article Size)

What I propose is merging the two articles (neither of which gives the full picture since they both lack NPOV ) and create a single NPOV article weaving all sides and sources into the narrative. some sections will become long enough to spin off into their own articles. for example we can have an article for each term he served ( possibly each year if he has that much information ) we can break down articles into individuals laws passed if needed. The way we break down this information is by TOPICS ( History of, etc ) not POV ( Criticism, vs non crticism ) Bryce Carmony (talk) 02:56, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

better look closely at the NPOV rules--they deal with debates among scholars, not the general public. I do not see them violated here. What I did was copy the lede from the Criticism article and make it a new section here. Readers who want the details can get it with a click. Rjensen (talk) 04:00, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Such sections in biographies are discouraged per WP:Criticism. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:06, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Usually yes. But in this case criticism of FDR became a little industry in its own, with political reverberations especially for politics on the right. So it's appropriate to have a separate article. What I did is add a paragraph or so to the main biography. Rjensen (talk) 04:19, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Saying that "Criticism of FDR" is it's own "topic" is not true. the topic is the same (FDR) if you want to see an article where criticism becomes the topic I think a great example is Art criticism look at the topics. the topics are "History" "Methodology" "definition" it really flushes out what art criticism is. Let's look at Criticism of Franklin D. Roosevelt what we see is different. There isn't a narrative, there's just a disjointed list of random "criticism" it looks unencyclopedic and it isn't giving the full picture. We can merge the two articles together. and then spin off topics needed. for example there could be "Franklin D. Roosevelt Controversies" this would be a great article because controversy is a TOPIC not a POV. another great perk is when you write a controversy it's easy (almost hard not to) write both sides of the story. Situation, Party A did this, Party B did this in response. it's so easy to write controversy NPOV. the Criticism article is not NPOV , it isn't encyclopedic, I'll start prepping the Criticism of article by breaking down the information into its main article components then we can take it section by section weaving the content into the main articles and then delete it. Bryce Carmony (talk) 04:41, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Well art Criticism is a major scholarly discipline with its own journals and conferences. Criticism of FDR is a hodgepodge, and indeed there isn't any "narrative." History does not need a narrative. The lack of narrative makes it even more awkward inside this biographical FDR article. One curious characteristic of all the criticism is that it continued long after his death. It continues today. The reason I think is that modern liberalism and modern conservatism have made FDR a hero and a villain. In this regard the criticism of FDR stands out as practically unique in American political history--- no other president or public official even comes close. The criticism is not closely linked to his biography. Rather it is about his policies, or more exactly the controversial policies in which he was in overall charge but which many other people and Congress contributed. All in all, that makes for very good reason have a long separate article on the criticisms controversies attacks counterattacks and defenses of FDR. Rjensen (talk) 04:53, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

That is why Art Criticism has an article that I do not propose merging :) . History doesn't need a narrative but Encyclapedic content does, every one of these criticisms happens in a point of time, either 1 of 2 things happens. 1- the criticism has a corresponding counter-part in the main article and can be woven in. or 2- there is no corresponding section in the main article in which case we make that section ( of course putting all sources into the section not just the criticism ). I'm not saying we wedge a "criticism" section into the FDR article I'm saying we weave the content together into a single article ( with spin off topics as needed of course ). I think "FDR Controversies" would make an exellent Article. and a lot of the content in "Criticism of FDR" would end up there. but the reason controversy > criticism is that we write controversies showing both sides in a single narrative. ( an example of this is how we write about WWII . it'd be hard to write the entire narrative only mentioning germany and never mentioning another country ). Let's say that there is controversy around the "new deal" then we get that into the article "new deal" or make an article "New deal controversy" or "Funding of Social Security controversy" or whatever we need to do. Those are good solutions. right now we have a bad solution by saying "We will have 2 articles about FDR one criticism and one no criticism allowed" that's not NPOV. I think we agree on a lot of steps we can take to get towards this. I'll look at starting a "FDR Controversies" article in the morning and see what content from "criticism of FDR" can find a home there. Bryce Carmony (talk) 05:24, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Well no ---it's very hard to Take a traditional chronological narrative like this biography, and "weave" into it debates that took place in the 1940s 1950s 1960s 1970s....2010s. That would certainly be out of kilter, and it's a technique that historians do not use. Furthermore, controversies are usually structured in terms of A versus B, or maybe a third position C. But these are more accurately called criticisms, because they are not necessarily part of a debate among historians. When political ideologies are polarized left and right, it is not necessarily true that the two sides actually talk to each other. They talk past each other. There is very little debate, for example, about Roosevelt's internment of the Japanese in the camps. What happened is that there was a very widespread consensus in favor of the movement at the time, followed by decades of silence, followed by an outburst of criticism in the 1970s in which (almost) nobody was defending the policy. That would be very hard to weave into this biography. The criticism of FDR made in say 1937 regarding his policies of 1937 are indeed covered in this article in the proper chronological place. It is not true that criticism of him has been suppressed. (example 1: This "court packing" plan ran into intense political opposition from his own party, led by Vice President Garner, since it upset the separation of powers and gave the President control over the Court. Roosevelt's proposal to expand the court failed. Example 2: His targets denounced Roosevelt for trying to take over the Democratic party and to win reelection, using the argument that they were independent. Roosevelt failed badly, managing to defeat only one target, a conservative Democrat from New York City. Example 3: There was no consensus on how much the US should risk war in helping Britain.[191] In July 1940, FDR appointed two interventionist Republican leaders, Henry L. Stimson and Frank Knox, as Secretaries of War and the Navy, respectively. Both parties gave support to his plans for a rapid build-up the American military, but the isolationists warned that Roosevelt would get the nation into an unnecessary war with Germany.) Rjensen (talk) 07:55, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

We aren't writing a history book about FDR we are writing an encyclopedia. writing NPOV is hard but it is something we can do. Bryce Carmony (talk) 09:13, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

What about an article "Franklin D. Roosevelt Legacy" Where we can put all information about the aftermath of his life. Modern critics can be listed there under "reception" and information on statistics could be put there. I think that article would be more useful than "Criticism of FDR" since the criticism article makes no sense by itself and the FDR article is not NPOV without the criticism parts. I'm all about making useful subtopics. but I'm not in favor of splitting single topics into 2 POV articles. Bryce Carmony (talk) 09:20, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

• This is a case where Wikipedia:Merge Test can be used, and the merger idea fails on both points - overlong article and inevitable loss of encyclopaedic content. Also, I fail to see any signs of POV in the criticism article - it's an acknowledged fact that FDR has been heavily criticised and the article seems balanced and well referenced. Hacking the article about is a bad idea and an unnecessary one. andy (talk) 18:36, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I have been doing research, of the 44 articles of US presidents. not a single one of them has a criticism page except for FDR. many don't even have the word "criticize" in the article. the only president besides FDR who has a criticism section is Jimmy Carter and it isn't even a criticism section about him, it is specific criticisms he's made against the US government, George Bush, and Barack Obama. Presidents like Nixon certainly have critics, but talented editors have woven those criticisms into the article about him. We can do the same thing with FDR. doing so will comply with NPOV Bryce Carmony (talk) 22:37, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

How much research did you do on Franklin Roosevelt?? I take it you've never read any of the many books that have been cited. Start with All but the people: Franklin D. Roosevelt and his critics, 1933-39 by George Wolfskill and John A. Hudson, And then you'll be in a position to comment on the issues involved. Rjensen (talk) 22:40, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I read the article Franklin D. Roosevelt but I don't know a lot about him since that article isn't written with a NPOV it is written with a criticism is banned POV. The content in Criticism of Franklin D. Roosevelt would really help flush out the article. if the article gets to long we can spin off some of the articles by topic. Would that be agreeable to you? Bryce Carmony (talk) 22:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Well no, Not really credible editor of such an complex subject with such a large Bibliography. Furthermore you been highly disruptive according to many editors, and according to me. Rjensen (talk) 22:50, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I am not being disruptive, Why is it you think that it is possible to weave a NPOV article about every single president in the history of the united states with the exception of FDR. You clearly know a lot about him, and I admire your knowledge, but I don't see how anything in Criticism of FDR can't find a home in a main article of FDR or in a new topic about FDR. Bryce Carmony (talk) 22:58, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

You're being disruptive because a) you're trying to reshape a major article on a topic you admit you know nothing about. That's leading from ignorance. Furthermore you have no credibility on any other presidential article-- can you name some of the major presidential biographies you have read? b) you ignore what other people say for example just now you ignored my three examples of serious criticism inside this article. You completely ignored my analysis of why the criticism of FDR is in a world of its own, separated by decades from the actual events being criticized. Rjensen (talk) 23:11, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

One of the strengths of not "knowing" much about topics is it makes me unlikely to commit original research. I think editors who aren't too close to the subject can be able to see the forest through the trees. that being said, I've removed the merger request. Rjensen I think you're a solid editor, I said that in ANI and I'll say it again, we are lucky to have you here at Wikipedia I appreciate your feedback in discussion Bryce Carmony (talk) 01:29, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Ignorance has very few virtues when it comes to writing encyclopedias. Rjensen (talk) 03:32, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

So you're saying people who read FDR are ignorant of FDR? must not be a good article, but we can work on it :) Bryce Carmony (talk) 07:00, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

The FDR article received over a quarter million hits in the last month. People who have never looked at even one reliable source on FDR need to glance at a real book before they plunge into serious writing for all these people, many of whom are currently studying FDR in high schools and universities around the world. Rjensen (talk) 07:12, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Alright keep up the good work Rjensen Bryce Carmony (talk) 07:15, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Vice presidents dont lose elections to each other

No one talks like that its nonsensical. People mainly vote for the presidents. Article should either say the president who was elected or discuss the tickets a whole because no one considers only the VPs when voting. AaronY (talk) 03:33, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that legally, the vice president is elected separately from the president, on a separate ballot on the electoral college. Theoretically the electoral college could confirm Hoover as Presidnt and Roosevelt as VP. So the question here is whether we want to be technically correct or use a more common understanding of presidential elections. I will leave that question to other editors.Awnman (talk) 03:56, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

"Vice Presidents don't lose election to each other". Yes, they do. The Vice-President is elected on a separate ballot from the president. Coolidge defeated FDR and Harding defeated Cox. pbp 14:10, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

FDR defeated by Coolidge or Harding?

There seems to be some disagreement between User:AaronY and myself as to the wording in the lead regarding the 1920 presidential election.

• I want it to read as: "In 1920, he was the Democratic nominee for Vice-President of the United States, but was defeated by Calvin Coolidge."
• He wants it to read as: In 1920, he was the Democratic nominee for Vice-President of the United States, but their ticket was defeated by Republican candidate Warren Harding.

To me, the Coolidge wording is the correct way. FDR ran against Coolidge and lost; James Cox ran against Harding and lost. It's also the most succinct way to summarize what happened. I'd also note that AaronY's version contains a "their" without an antecedent. So let's take a little straw poll as to how we like it. pbp 13:54, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Defeated by Coolidge (Purplebackpack89)

1. pbp 13:54, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Defeated by Harding (AaronY)

Discussion

• Neither choice is satisfying to me. How about the following? "In 1920, Roosevelt ran for vice president under presidential candidate James M. Cox but the Cox/Roosevelt ticket lost to Harding/Coolidge." Binksternet (talk) 15:10, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

the latest idea by Binksternet works for me. Rjensen (talk) 16:16, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

It's not as succinct as what's there now, and if enacted, should say "the Republican ticket of Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge" rather than just "Harding/Coolidge" pbp 18:43, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Like this? "In 1920, Roosevelt ran for vice president under presidential candidate James M. Cox but the Cox/Roosevelt ticket lost to the Republican ticket of Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge." I would be fine with this. Binksternet (talk) 19:05, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I guess I could acquiesce to that. pbp 22:19, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

try this: Roosevelt's wartime activity, and his famous name, attracted Democrats who put him on the national ticket in 1920 as candidate for vice president. The ticket lost in a landslide." This formulation has the advantage of putting the emphasis on Roosevelt, where it belongs in this biography, let people click on links to find out about Cox, who is otherwise quite important. Rjensen (talk) 22:27, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Binksters last wording looks good to me. AaronY (talk) 07:04, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Since we all seem to be in agreement, I went ahead and made the change. pbp 14:37, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

However, "under" doesn't sound quite right. What about "with"? Otherwise it's fine. Dhtwiki (talk) 21:36, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Personal victory?

What does "personal victory over polio" mean? I don't understand the etiology of the disease, nor what Roosevelt did as a result of his infection, but this phrase reads as overly symbolic instead of being factual. Any ideas? I think it could be improved upon. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 13:20, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

it's standard terminology and means he overcame the negative elements of the severe handicap by positive action on his part. Rjensen (talk) 13:24, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

It could be phrased better. (Hohum ^@) 13:55, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Conformity within the presidential infoboxes

Should the Franklin D. Roosevelt infobox conform and link the successor President (in this case Harry S. Truman) as all other presidential bios do? Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:45, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Support

1. Support for conformity with all other U.S. President articles and ease of use for our readers. It is a natural click for thumbing through the Presidents. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:45, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
2. Support—it only makes sense. Even if there is a guideline that says to avoid extra links to the same article, WP:IAR and common sense trumps that. Imzadi 1979 → 22:52, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

   IAR doesn't apply; there's no good reason to ignore a highly upheld guideline. "Common sense" doesn't say to go against it either in this case. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:57, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

3. Support. I'm all for deleting overlinks, but ease of navigation trumps here, to my mind. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:46, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
4. Support. I support this.Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 22:41, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
5. Support. The article should conform with all other U.S President Wiki articles. Cheers, Comatmebro ^{~Come at me~} 01:12, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
6. Support I think that for these porposes it makes it a lot easier to navigate to do both and I consider @SNUGGUMS:'s actions to be bad faith. I also think that it is common sense to link all of them. StudiesWorld (talk) 00:42, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
7. Support, it should be the same as the other presidents, regardless of the overlinking (which I'm traditionally opposed to), it just makes it easier to use in general. Kharkiv07^Talk 04:29, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
8. Support. Summoned by bot. I don't see the harm of another link. By the way, I had been given to understand that there was no period after the "S" in Harry S. Truman, as it stood for nothing but was just an initial he added. Coretheapple (talk) 19:18, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
9. Support. This is the strangest overlinking argument I've ever seen. The guideline is meant to avoid distracting prose; links in infoboxes are nothing but a utility for the reader, no? The guideline even addresses this situation: "a link may be repeated in infoboxes..." Cool Hand Luke 22:39, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose per long standing consensus that terms shouldn't be linked more than once within an infobox per WP:OVERLINK. Other Presidential articles shouldn't link terms more than once within an infobox either. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:47, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
2. Oppose I'm one of those who have been reverting the linking, which has been going on for some time, but not well explained in any edit summary that I can remember. And now, for the first time, we have some explanation of what's happening. If you want to talk about disruptive editing... It's usual, on Wikipedia, for terms to be left unlinked, where they have been wiki-linked above; and the aware reader is expected to come to know that. In this infobox, as well as that of every other president who died in office, the successor should be linked, as vice-president, just above, not a few sentences or a paragraph or two, but just above, in a very small textual space. I see that this article is inconsistent with those of others' who have died in office, but I too am tempted to want to resolve that inconsistency in favor of this article's format. It is considerably different, after all, for a president to be succeeded by a vice president because of death in office, as opposed to a elected successor at the end of a presidential term. Dhtwiki (talk) 03:43, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

   Are you saying that only in the case of a President leaving office early is it ok to leave the succeeded by unlinked? The Harrison, Taylor, Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley, Harding, Kennedy and Nixon articles are all different than this one. What makes dying in office different for our infoboxes, and remember not all our readers are "aware" of our nuances. There are plenty of kids and first-time adult readers using wikipedia too. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:42, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

   My idea of overlinking would leave "succeeded by" unlinked in the case of any president who is immediately succeeded by his vice president, and that would add George Washington (where John Adams is unlinked in the second postition), as well as John Adams, Andrew Jackson, and Ronald Reagan (all overlinked, according to my point of view). I have found no discussion with regard to overlinking at George Washington or at Thomas Jefferson (whose infobox shows some considerable overlinking). Thus, I'm not aware of any considered discussion as to why infoboxes should be treated differently than the article body. The Overlink policy must be in place for good reason, because it would be more convenient to have linked terms so linked in all positions. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:25, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

   Thanks for the clarification. Two things...Overlink is a guideline that we treat with common sense, not a policy, and George Washington has Adams linked... it was only removed once I brought this RfC here. It has since been fixed. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:05, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

   If anything, common sense would say linking things more than once in an infobox is repetitive. Snuggums (talk / edits) 06:17, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

3. Oppose as been stated. We have guidelines for a reason. It makes no sense (common or otherwise) to repeat links in an infobox. --Musdan77 (talk) 18:13, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

Helping my little cousin last night we were going through the Presidents one by one gathering info, clicking on each Succeeded by, sometimes going back to the Preceded by to gather his information. The little guy ran into a road block at FDR since Truman isn't linked. Even though Truman was listed and linked as the third vice president it wasn't readily apparent to check there since every other presidential bio had a quick link to his successor. This is such an important item in the infobox I think it should be linked regardless of whether a person is linked as a vice-President. And having FDR as pretty much the only case where this is not linked is a pretty poor choice for our readers.

Since this is an anomaly I thought it best to correct the change here first. Otherwise we can take it to places like "WikiProject United States Presidents" or "WikiProject United States" where consensus can be formed to either remove all the President successor links (if also linked as a VP) or link all the President successors regardless. Either choice is far better than one or two non-conforming articles that can confuse our readers. I tried to change it but was reverted with a summary of WP:OVERLINK and that conformity of Presidential articles doesn't matter. WP:OVERLINK is a guideline, not a policy, and it also tells us to "Use common sense in applying it." I lean for simply adding the extra link in this case because of the importance of the infobox category... it's a natural item for our readers to try and click on. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:45, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:ONLYGUIDELINE is really a poor rationale as it overlooks and undermines the value that guidelines bring. We have guidelines for a reason, so they should be put to use. No other Presidential articles should link people more than once within an infobox. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:47, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

They are guidelines because they can't possibly cover everything. WikiProjects take over for the minutia. But the guideline specifically says to use common sense. If the vast majority consensus seems to follow that the specific successor entry is important enough to link, it stands to reason that they feel common sense is our guideline in this case. I think common sense and ease of searching for our many readers takes precedence here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:57, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Interesting.... while this discussion is going on, user SNUGGUMS is going through all the Presidents and removing the successor links. I consider this bad faith and disruptive. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:06, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Frankly, it isn't disruptive or bad faith at all; I'm simply abiding by MoS guidelines. If anything, "common sense" would say not to link terms more than needed. Excess infobox links have been repeatedly removed, and with good reason. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:35, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

You may be shown to be correct in your assessment of having the successor President of the United States unlinked, but when it's under discussion here, and you know it is under discussion here, it is both bad faith and disruptive to change every article to conform to your view. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:44, 9 April 2015 (UTC)