Talk:List of Presidents of the United States/Archive 7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8

Official portraits

Why aren't all the photos the official portraits? The Kennedy photo, for example, is not his official portrait, which can be seen here. AmateurEditor (talk) 06:08, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

At one time, the pictures from Presidential portrait (United States) were used on this list (note how different Kennedy's is). Although I don't see anything explicitly stating the reason for the change in the edit history, I suspect that a closer view of the faces was preferred for these smaller images - and I concede that is a better idea. As far as which picture we use here, it probably makes sense to use the same one from the individual president's article, such as John F. Kennedy's. But the bottom line is, as long as it clearly identifies the person, does it really matter which picture we use? What are your specific concerns with the photo currently on the list? Hoof Hearted (talk) 14:06, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
I agree that the current photo for Kennedy is an improvement over the painting, which makes it difficult to see his face and is in a notably different style than the rest. I also don't think there is any requirement here that only official photographs/portraits be used, although you could make an argument on neutrality grounds, probably. My concern is about consistency. Just as Kennedy's official painted portrait sticks out as unusual, so does the present photo. It's more evocative of a magazine shoot than a portrait. His official photograph is nice and has a more traditional facing-and-looking-at-the-camera pose, consistent with the other images, including the early paintings. It is a little more plain, granted, but I see that as a virtue in this context. AmateurEditor (talk) 22:12, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
I like your picture too, but it appears to be copyrighted and I doubt it meets the conditions for fair use. Are there any images on Wikimedia that you like better? Hoof Hearted (talk) 18:24, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
My understanding is that, as a work of the US government, Presidents' official photos are not under copyright. I'm open to correction on that; I don't claim to be an expert. I have emailed the website I linked above for clarification, but wouldn't expect to hear back before next week, if ever. I did, however, find a version of Kennedy's official photo in Commons here. AmateurEditor (talk) 03:39, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
I have also found a copy of this portrait at Flickr Commons here, which says in the info box "No known copyright restrictions" and "This photo is Safe". I have added it to the article. AmateurEditor (talk) 00:47, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

PRESIDENTS OF THE UNITED STATES

THE ENTRY OMITS WOODROW WILSON FROM THE LIST OF PRESIDENTS WHO ASSUMED OFFICE HAVING FAILED TO SECURE A MAJORITY OF THE POPULAR VOTE (ELECTION OF 1912) 174.1.136.149 (talk) 18:35, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done The 4 presidents listed are those that "lost the popular vote", not those that "failed to secure a majority". In 1912 Wilson won 41.8%, Roosevelt 27.4%, Taft 23.2% and Debs 6% - so Wilson did not lose the popular vote. Conversely in 2000 Bush had 47.9% to Gore's 48.4% -in 1888 Harrison 47.8% Cleveland 48.6% -in 1876 Hayes 47.9% Tiden 50.9% and 1824 Adams 30.9% and Jackson 41.4%. Arjayay (talk) 19:15, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Such a situation is not uncommon when there are 3 or more candidates. Having checked up, in addition to 1912 there are 6 other elections where the president who was elected, failed to score a majority:- 1842, 1856, 1860, 1892, 1968 and 1992, but in all of these, as in 1912, they did not lose the popular vote. Arjayay (talk) 19:26, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
You should also add 1844, 1848, 1880, 1884, 1916, 1948, 1960, & 1996 to your above list.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:21, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

John Adams was not a federalist

John Adams always refused to be considered to be a federalist. At the time there were no "Republican tickets" or "Federalist tickets", candidates ran "independently". Although Thomas Jefferson and the subsequent presidents identified themselves with parties, neither George Washington nor John Adams did. John Adams did not even run, for it was considered to be unacceptable for a potential candidate to run for office until many years later. He was an independent candidate.

To further support this argument, John Adams was being opposed by both Republicans AND Federalists. Alexander Hamilton was the real "leader" of the Federalist party. It is common knowledge and proved by extensive evidence that Hamilton actively sought out to undermine John Adams. Both during the election campaign and during his subsequent years as President of the United States, Hamilton undermined the "Duke of Braintree" (as he is sometimes referred to).

John Adams' cabinet was identical to George Washington's and the members were therefore not loyal to Adams but to Hamilton (a close ally of the First President of the United States). Both the Republicans and Hamilton and his federalists opposed Adams (and his son later-on) making his (and his son's) presidency much harder than it should have been.

I therefore ask that the "Federalist" party heading destined for John Adams be removed and for it to be replaced by the "No party" heading, like George Washington.

Thank you.

Tomitoch (talk) 17:29, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

[1] [2] [3] [4]

  1. ^ Founding Brothers, Joseph J. Ellis
  2. ^ Passionate Sage: The Character and Legacy of John Adams, Joseph J. Ellis
  3. ^ John Adams, David McCullough
  4. ^ First Family: Abigail and John Adams, Joseph J. Ellis
I think you're right, but the John Adams article has his party as the Federalist Party in multiple places and I would rather it be fixed there first to avoid reversion or edit warring here later. AmateurEditor (talk) 01:31, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
This article is locked. So why not fix it here first? In order to correct a mistake, however inconvenient you find it do deal with people who will resist accurate edits. Someone must accurately make this edit and it must begin somewhere. SecretJournalsofCongress (talk) 03:51, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Because it is not at all clear that this is a cut-and-dry mistake. I have read sources in the past that refer to Adams as a Federalist. In my opinion they are exaggerating (my understanding is that he resisted the idea of parties, but found himself aligned with the Federalists most of the time), but the best place to get the issue resolved is at the John Adams page, where we can presume that the editors most interested or knowledgeable about the man (and the sources about him) can be found.AmateurEditor (talk) 22:10, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Technical help please...

I noticed that each image in the list is "cropped" or a specific area of the original is enlarged using a css image crop. I would like to use this for another list. Could someone please explain how I set the overall size and how to determine the exact numbers needed for the remaining variables? Any help would be much appreciated.-Godot13 (talk) 02:54, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Content removed on 31 August 2014

The following content was removed because the topic covered was addressed by the second paragraph in lede:

The listing below is complete for the current government of the USA. For this country, however, there were prior governments (including that under the Articles of Confederation). Prior to George Washington as first president under the current constitution, there were twelve people in leadership over the government of the United States of America who held the title of "President".

If you disagree with this edit, then please state your objections. Thank you. Mitchumch (talk) 01:41, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Proposal for a new column

A column specifying the gender of each president would clarify some features of the United States Presidents and serve as a useful tool for readers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.1.73.225 (talk) 16:50, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I would rather see a statement in the prose of the article to the effect that "all presidents have been male", rather than a column where every entry is "male", but I don't think it's necessary. Besides, the table is already pushing the envelope on width as it is. I think it would be best to state "so-and-so was the first female president" when the time comes. Hoof Hearted (talk) 22:11, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

List images

I recently replaced the earlier images at United States Secretary of the Treasury with extremely high resolution BEP engraved portraits. I would like to do the same thing for this list with the presidents from Washington through either McKinley or Truman. Many of the existing images are very small and do not provide much detail. I would use the css template currently in place (as was done in the Treasury list) to enlarge the center of the engraved portraits. Are there any objections to this idea?--Godot13 (talk) 16:14, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

With all due respect, Godot, I don't really like how it looks in the Treasury list. Portraits are just too large (about 200-250 px). It is just unnecessary to have such a huge images in a list of officeholders. It stretch the list too much and makes it harder to follow the info, etc... Portraits should be about 100-150 px, as they are currently in this list. I'd strongly encourage you to scale down images in the Treasury list, and I definitely can't support to have images 200-250 px big in this list. --Sundostund (talk) 18:23, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Sundostund- Understood. What if the images were all exactly 125px wide and range from 140px to 160px in height (depending on the height of the row given the existing text)?--Godot13 (talk) 18:50, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Godot, that maybe would work, but I can't know for sure until I see how it looks in the list... In my opinion, the current size of the images on this list should stay, I'm pretty happy with its present look. And, as I said above, please scale down images in the Treasury list. --Sundostund (talk) 19:02, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Sundostund- Let me work it up in the parameters above, and I'll show it to you (in a draft/sandbox form).-Godot13 (talk) 19:08, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Godot, its a good idea, it may be helpful. --Sundostund (talk) 19:15, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Sundostund- It would look something like this. The exact size and centering (and enlargement) is not final and can all be refined. For example, on the portraits that have wreaths on the sides, does it matter if they are intact or cut off? Also, while I loaded all of the portraits I have, I wouldn't necessarily support all of them. I mean, #1-26 all come from the same BEP presentation album given to Secretary Lyman Gage when he left office. About the same time, the engraving style changed and became much more bland. I would only suggest Washington through Theodore Roosevelt's portraits as there is generally more detail in the engraved portraits than the photos up to that point. After that higher quality photos should be available. Let me know what you think.--Godot13 (talk) 20:32, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Godot- As for the size, they look a bit too wide to me, height seems pretty much OK. As for the wreaths, I think you can cut them off, because on most of your images wreaths don't exist, so they should be cut off from those images which contain them, to bring "in line" all the pics... This thing worries me: I generally don't have anything against your portraits, but I'm unsure whether those existing pics (especially early black-and-white photographs) should be removed? I mean, I'd rather see an original photograph of Lincoln or Grant (and all the other Presidents who served from the discovery of early photography in the 1830s-40s), how they actually looked in their lifetime, instead of their engraving. Anyway, if your option is implemented, I definitely agree that your portraits should stop at Theodore Roosevelt. After him, its pretty much the start of the "modern age" with better images, so there's no need for engravings any more. --Sundostund (talk) 23:09, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I actually tend to agree with you... Perhaps the engraved portraits could replace Washington to Buchanan. The few early photos are very low quality. From Lincoln on would be the photographic images. But I think we can do better in terms of the photo selection... I'll rework the draft version (crop into the wreaths, narrow the images a bit) and only focus on #1-15.--Godot13 (talk) 23:21, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
    I'm glad to hear that you understood my concerns... I think they could replace Washington to Polk (from 1-11). From Taylor onwards, I think we should have photographs. I even saw some photos of Jackson (but they were taken in his old age, long after his term expired)... If existing photos are of low quality, maybe we should find some others, but its obvious that we can have photographs from the year 1849 to the present day. --Sundostund (talk) 23:40, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Sundostund-per the discussion above, painted portrait images have been replaced with BEP engraved portraits. No photographic images have been replaced.--Godot13 (talk) 05:19, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
And the width remains the same as before...-Godot13 (talk) 05:21, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
I think it looks fine. Nice work, Godot. Its very important that we kept all the photographs... --Sundostund (talk) 11:08, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Presidents of the United States (1789–1909)

Presidents of the United States (1789–1909), a set of 25 high resolution restored BEP engraved images, has been nominated at Featured Pictures. Should you have any interest in viewing or commenting, the nomination will be open until 12 October. Thanks -- Godot13 (talk) 23:30, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Ben Harrison

Benjamin Harrison also lost reelection. Could someone please add the footnote there? Thanks in advance --89.13.63.123 (talk) 12:57, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Got it. GoodDay (talk) 17:08, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

President Eisenhower

In the heading "Previous Job" you correctly identify Ike as Supreme Commander, but the dates should be BEFORE he was president. Since WWII ended in 1945, so too did his job — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.62.196.102 (talk) 02:05, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

See Supreme Allied Commander Europe. Ike's term ended on May 30, 1952, well past the German Instrument of Surrender, but also several months before his presidential term started on January 20, 1953. If instead you are saying that his "previous job" should be listed as President of Columbia University (as this was his job immediately before becoming president) - the column heading is actually "Previous office" which implies previous experience as it relates to the POTUS. His military office should be the focus. Hoof Hearted (talk) 13:42, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Not a sortable list?

Any reason this list is not sortable by some basic parameters, such as alphabetically, age when assumed office, political party? Gaff ταλκ 15:58, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

At one time the list was sortable (simply change class from "wikitable" to "wikitable sortable"), but it was removed because of issues with the merged cells (Vice President, for example). In my quick test, it works, but isn't perfect. When sorting on other columns the presidents (and pictures) are duplicated for multi-term presidents. Names can only be sorted on first name and dates only on the alphabetical order of months (April before January) without adding more bulky code. This is probably why several other sorted lists are available, linked in the hatnote and footer of this article. There are lists for age, political affiliation, and several other categories. You can sort several of these on (first) name, but alas there is nothing for last names. Perhaps List of Presidents of the United States by name#Last name origins could be modified to only list the last name?. Hoof Hearted (talk) 15:35, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Got it. thx. Gaff ταλκ 16:25, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposed formatting change

I would like to make a formatting change to the article. Another editor has asked me to see advice first. Please consider my proposed change here.—GoldRingChip 13:47, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I actually thought it was a big improvement. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:00, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
It certainly wasn't a big improvement. I think the present format should stay. I think it looks far better than proposed change. As can be seen in proposed change, pictures are far too large and even years of birth and death are removed... Honestly, I see no reason why the present format should be changed. In the end, new formatting can't be implemented without consensus, and it will be interesting to see what other users have to say about this. --Sundostund (talk) 14:29, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
If you want consensus, that's fine— I won't argue now whether I was rightly or overly being bold as that's always a matter of opinion. I think we can get a consensus that we'll all be happy with. If I'd seen someone make such changes to an article I'd worked on, then I too would have reverted and asked for consensus. So I'm happy to work with everyone and I'll try to make everyone happy!
Having said that, what I should have done in talking about my proposal a few minutes ago, is outline all the changes I suggested. So let's see if I can do it here. Most of the changes are for simplicity, either for readers or for editors:
  1. Added "and year elected" in heading
  2. Merged the image and the name into once column.
  3. Increased image size
  4. Simplified the code for the image size
  5. Removed shading except in party names. People with vision issues and certain browsers don't work well that way. That's why it's discouraged in Wikipedia.
  6. Removed years born and died as not relevant to the list
  7. Combined "Took office" and "Left office" into one field, "Years"
  8. Overlapped VP's service in the two cases where VP served 2 POTUS's
  9. Linked directly to the article about lists of Senators from that state thereby simplifying the link
  10. Removed years served in previous office as not relevant to the list
  11. Removed VP's party shading. The party itself is only slightly relevant here, and the party wasn't actually included, just the shading
  12. Removed "<span>…</span>" when unnecessary
  13. Did I miss anything?
Your comments are appreciated!—GoldRingChip 14:43, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Of course I want consensus, its a cornerstone of WP. There's no change which can be applied without it. Other users will have the chance to say their opinion on all of this, its the only way to solve this issue. Period. From my point of view, your proposed formatting is unacceptable - especially increasing image size, removing years of birth and death, merging the image and the name into once column, removing party shading from number column... Should I list more? You want to take this highly important list and remove from it elements which, in the years behind us, have become standard parts of all lists of officeholders on English WP. All of your proposals doesn't seem acceptable to me. I'll say again - the present format should stay, I see no reason for changes and for turning upside down this high-quality list. As I said my opinion both above and here, I don't plan to post further responses, I'll just watch this page to see what other users will say and what the final decision will be. Cheers! --Sundostund (talk) 15:37, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your feedback! I can't see much explanation for your opposition other than the mere fact of your opposition. The one point I do see is that the elements "have become standard parts of all lists of officeholders on English WP." This is not the case with most lists of U.S. Congressmen. Otherwise, I don't know what the relevance of most of these elements are. Also, what about the color/shading issues? And the spans? And the combined years? I think the image size is a matter of opinion, but if there's a WP standard somewhere, then that's fine. Otherwise, we need to flesh out these discussions other than "your proposed formatting is unacceptable." —GoldRingChip 17:12, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
FYI, I'm talking about lists of presidents, prime ministers etc on English WP, not about lists of U.S. Congressmen... Anyway, I stated my opposition in the way I considered appropriate. I raised the issues which I consider highly problematic in your proposed formatting (both in the way of content and in the aesthetic/graphic way), and that's it. Nothing more, nothing less. My opinion is available for everyone to see it... As for "fleshing out these discussions", that will happen when other users start to post their comments on this thread. They'll do it in the way they consider appropriate, and then we'll have consensus on this issue. --Sundostund (talk) 17:35, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
It might have been nice to have a discussion regarding the removal of the engraved portraits (which provided significantly more detail than the cropped images that replaced them)...--Godot13 (talk) 19:36, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
That sounds interesting… engraved portraits- cool! I didn't change any of the images, only their sizes and locations. So I'm guessing the change to which you refer was made before my proposal.—GoldRingChip 20:11, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, that wasn't meant to be directed at you, just a general comment. Check out what was there (in a past version) about 2-3 weeks ago for the presidents pre-photo era...--Godot13 (talk) 01:45, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Comments – First, no matter what happens, the date on the {{Use mdy dates}} template should not be changed from August 2011: the date of the "Use xxx dates" templates should never be changed from their original addition dates. Beyond that, I agree that the new table format is, in general, an improvement as, for example, it unifies the "party colors" in with the "Party" (label) column itself, which is definitely an improvement. However, I agree with the criticism that the birth year–death year dates shouldn't be removed from the "President" column, and that the new version of the presidential images is too large (the current table's version of the images is probably better). So, a qualified 'thumbs up' on the new format, which would be a more unqualified 'thumbs up' if these reservations are dealt with. --IJBall (talk) 03:17, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Just a short comment (I said above that I don't plan to post further responses and that I'll just watch this page, and I meant it) – IJBall, I'm glad to see that you agree with me about years of birth and death and about images size... As for party colors, I don't necessarily oppose them being placed at the "Party" column, but why should we remove party shading from the "№" column? Maybe we can have both in the list? And a note to all users - please keep in mind that all changes which (if consensus is reached) we make here, must also be implemented at the List of Vice Presidents of the United States, for the sake of consistency. --Sundostund (talk) 13:29, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Basically, the newer way is better because it eliminates the awkward "mini-column" that shows "party colors" with the V.P. too (that is unnecessary, as the only "mixed party" Pres-V.P. ticket happened in 1864, which can easily be 'Noted' instead (as it already is)...), and having the color associated with the party rather than the "No" makes that info more clear as well (I think having colors in both columns will probably look redundant...). And you are, of course, correct – whatever changes end up being made to this list table will also have to be made to the List of Vice Presidents of the United States table as well. --IJBall (talk) 17:08, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Few additional questions - IJBall, what's your opinion about the proposed merging of the image and the name into once column? I really see no reason for that... Also, what you think about adding "and year elected" in heading (in "Term" column), and combining "Took office" and "Left office" into one field, "Years"? I can accept that stuff with some rewording - for instance, we can put "Election" instead of "and year elected", and "Term of office" would look better than just "Years"... It maybe looks like small stuff, but it can be important in the final version of the new format (if we decide to implement it). --Sundostund (talk) 21:26, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Some of the changes in the new version might be more of a problem if this table was still "sortable". But as a currently non-sortable table, combining the pictures and names into one column probably isn't an important change – so I really could go either way on that particular change (i.e. I have no strong feelings either way). (I do agree with you that the birth year–death year info should be put back in that column...) Again, with non-sortability, combining the "Took office" and "Left office" columns into one column is also no big deal, though I think that column should be renamed from "Years" to "Years in office". I think your suggestion of "Term (election)" is also probably an improvement over the original "new" version of "Term (and year elected)"... So, I think we're getting somewhere. Let's see what @GoldRingChip: and others have to say... --IJBall (talk) 21:38, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your responses, IJBall. I just wanted to raise some issues which I consider problematic in the proposed new format, and I think I did that... Anyway, we'll see what will happen once when "modified" new format is implemented (if that happens, of course). --Sundostund (talk) 22:24, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

@GoldRingChip: Thank you for being open to a discussion about your proposed edit. I want to address each specific proposal using your outline listed above. Also, I've invited User:Golbez and User:Bgwhite to participate in this discussion due to their familiarity with list articles such as this one and their experience with featured list proposals.

  • Added "and year elected" in heading
I support the suggested edit "Term (election)" by User:IJBall made on 21:38, 14 March 2015 instead of the proposed edit.
  • Merged the image and the name into once column.
I have never before seen this proposed edit. This would be a new element in the article. Visually, it only seems to remove one vertical line that separates the image from the adjoining text. I have a question. Can this edit be performed without changing anything else?
  • Increased image size
This point seems written in ambiguous terms. What explicitly was your aim?
The first meaning of "image size" could refer to the length and width (perimeters) of the frame that the image of President is displayed within. The perimeters with the proposed edit creates inconsistencies from image to image (see Franklin Pierce and James Buchanan).
The second meaning of "image size" could refer to the head shots or body of each President. The second meaning does not appear to be true. Although some head shots or body of Presidents were enlarged (see Andrew Johnson and Grover Cleveland), other head shots or body of numerous Presidents shrank (see John Tyler and Lyndon Johnson). The proposed edit also creates inconsistencies of placement of all head shots and body within their frames.
The Template:CSS image crop allowed for exact control over all three elements of each image. The template is a new element that was first added by me on 12 November 2013‎. The proposed edit is a reversion to older versions of this article. See any version of this article prior to 12 November 2013‎. Also, see proposed edit “Simplified the code for the image size.”
The Lists of heads of state or government within the "United States" subsection of Wikipedia:Featured lists has 26 articles. Of those, only eight have images within the list/table. All of those images are smaller than the current article, except List of Governors of Kentucky. That articles images are comparable to the List of Presidents of the United States article.
  • Simplified the code for the image size
The term “simplified” could mean complex code was replaced with simple code that produced an identical outcome. However, the outcome in the proposed edit was not an identical outcome. The proposed edit produced outcomes that led to irregular sized head shots, various placements of head shots, and different sized widths and lengths of the frame for each President.
The Template:CSS image crop allowed for exact control over all three elements of each image. The template is a new element that was first added by me on 12 November 2013‎. The proposed edit is a reversion to older versions of this article. See any version of this article prior to 12 November 2013‎. Also, see proposed edit “Increased image size.”
  • Removed shading except in party names. People with vision issues and certain browsers don't work well that way. That's why it's discouraged in Wikipedia.
I am not familiar with these claims. Please show links that support the claims about “vision issues,” “certain browsers,” and “discouraged in Wikipedia.”
The vertical colored bars were first added by User:Bgwhite on 12 August 2010‎. The proposed edit is a slight reversion to older versions of this article. See any version of this article prior to 12 August 2010‎. Also, the Lists of heads of state or government section of Wikipedia:Featured lists would support the use of the current shading (see “United States” subsection).
  • Removed years born and died as not relevant to the list
The Lists of heads of state or government section of Wikipedia:Featured lists would support the proposed edit. Only List of Governors of Ohio within the subsection “United States” has years born and died. They were added by me on 6 October 2013‎.
The years of birth and death were added by User:BartBassist on 15 May 2011. They are a new element added to the article.
  • Combined "Took office" and "Left office" into one field, "Years"
The Lists of heads of state or government section of Wikipedia:Featured lists would support the use of the "Took office" and "Left office" columns. They are standard elements in those articles.
  • Overlapped VP's service in the two cases where VP served 2 POTUS's
Specifically, you are referring to George Clinton during the administrations of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. Also, John C. Calhoun during the administrations of John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson. This element is present in the current article. If I have misunderstood your proposed edit, then please correct me. If I understand you correctly, then this does not seem to be a change.
  • Linked directly to the article about lists of Senators from that state thereby simplifying the link
Is there an argument to keep as is?
  • Removed years served in previous office as not relevant to the list
The “years served in previous office” along with the office was started by User:The Theosophist on 6 November 2012. Everything in the entire column is a new element.
  • Removed VP's party shading. The party itself is only slightly relevant here, and the party wasn't actually included, just the shading
The Lists of heads of state or government section of Wikipedia:Featured lists would support the use of the "VP's party shading." They are standard elements in the “United States” subsection articles.
  • Removed "<span>…</span>" when unnecessary
This piece of code is used in the "Took office," "Left office," "Previous office," and "Vice President" columns. Why do you think this code is unnecessary?

One final thought. The article List of Presidents of the United States appears to be challenging the standard for comparable article lists (i.e., executive officeholders of governmental units). Until this article is submitted as a proposed feature article, a final conclusion may not be reachable on new elements without prior precedents to assist us. Mitchumch (talk) 02:19, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Term column

The line between Terms 44 & 45 appears to be misplaced as President Johnson served part of President Kennedy's term.Docearly (talk) 03:33, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

It looks right to me(?). The 44th "term" started with Kennedy but ended with Johnson - thus the line should be within Johnson's row on the table. Hoof Hearted (talk) 19:12, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
I disagree with the choice of the year shown with each term number. It is obvious to me that the years shown are the years in which the electors for the presidential and vice-presidential elections were appointed, but I would not expect everybody to know that. Generally, I would expect any years shown with a term number to be the years of the term. Since single years rather than ranges are shown, I would expect those to be when the terms started, but that is true only for Term 1.
Also, it seems to me that the note in the heading of the column of term numbers would be far more appropriate in the heading of the column of presidency numbers.
Regarding the first comment in this section, I totally agree with Hoof Hearted. JFK served part of Term 44, and LBJ served part of Term 44 and all of Term 45.
HankW512 (talk) 15:14, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
To be sure, this is a dense table - there is a lot of information in a limited number of columns. I think that election articles should be linked somewhere in this table, and it seems to me that it makes sense to include it in the "term" column because each term had one election. It might be best if we specify that in the column headings, something like "Term (election)". If you are looking for the exact dates that the term started, you should look to the "Took office" and "Left office" columns for the specific dates. Two-term presidents are a little problematic, but I think it's best if this list sticks to the basics, and let the linked articles give more details.
I agree with your other point that the term note would be better placed on the presidency number heading. Hoof Hearted (talk) 13:07, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 May 2015

The table including a list of living presidents is missing Jimmy Carter 90.194.115.50 (talk) 06:02, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: It's there. You may have some issue with your web browser. Cannolis (talk) 12:34, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
One possible reason that Carter's entry was overlooked may be because the list is in order by age rather than by presidency (I, too, would expect the latter).
HankW512 (talk) 14:40, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Well, the sentence immediately preceding that table states it is in order from oldest to youngest. The oldest president is generally the closest to death. Hoof Hearted (talk) 13:28, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Some questions

Some questions from a Scandinavian contributer, couldn't find full answers in the article, so if possible, I would very much appriciate answers on the following questions.

  1. Two four year terms is the longest allowed time for an US President. Is this just a custom or a constitutional law ?
  2. If it's a law, howcome FD Roosevelt could be elected four times ? I know Second World War was going on 1939-45, but the United States wasn't involved in the war by the time of the 1940 election.
  3. Is two terms absolute ? Grover Cleveland won, lost and then won again - a total of two terms and 8 years. But could he have run for a second term during his second Presidency term ? Or - similar, could George W Bush or Bill Clinton run again ? I.o.w. is the eight years/two terms an absolute total or is two times in a row what matters ?
  4. Harry Truman and Lyndon B Johnson both took office after the death of their predecessor. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if I'm correct both finished that term, won one election and then quitted. Could they have continued for a second election ?
  5. Is the President the leader of the US Government, in some other republics like France and Finland there are also rather "strong" presidents, but the government is led by a Prime Minister. Are the Vice President some kind of Prime Minister, or is he/she just "waiting" ? Answeres very much appriciated. Boeing720 (talk) 22:46, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
  1. The Twenty-second Amendment to the United States Constitution is a constitutional law ratified in 1951. (This information is in the first paragraph of this article) Prior to 1951 it was a custom started by the first president, George Washington.
  2. The amendment did not pass congress until 1947, well after FDR's death. It was partly a reaction to his unprecedented number of terms.
  3. The amendment states "no person may be elected President more than twice, and no one who has served more than two years of a term to which someone else was elected may be elected more than once. (This information is in the first paragraph of this article) Bush and Clinton both won 2 elections, and therefore are no longer eligible to be president. Had the amendment been in place during Cleveland's presidencies, he would not be eligible for another term.
  4. Truman served more than 2 years of FDR's term plus his own 4-year term. However a clause in the amendment stated that it would not apply to the current president - thus Truman was eligible. He ultimately decided not to run again. Johnson was eligible for a second full term but declined.
  5. The President is the head of state and head of government for the United States (this is in the very first sentence of this article!). It could be said that the Vice President is "just waiting" to become President, but there are several duties with that title, including President of the Senate and presiding over Congress during the Electoral College vote tally, as well as a certain amount of policy influence. Hoof Hearted (talk) 18:56, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
A very detailed and appriciated answer, thanks very much indeed. If I understand it correctly, as of today's constitution and amendments, a President can only be elected ONCE - and re-elected for a second period. For Vice-Presidents who becomes President, the fist period "counts", if it's longer than 2 years. If shorter, there is a possibility for a former Vice-President to be President for almost 10 years, but not quite. There is no possible way to become President two times. The President selects all members of his/her government. The reason for this question was to compare with for instance the French fifth Republic. Although France is regarded to have "a strong President" after 1959, he/she isn't the chief of the government, the Prime Minister is. (So in that respect, the American President sooner resembles the French Président du Conseil during the 3rd and 4th Republics 1871-1940 and 1944-1959) I thank You once again for these concrete answers Boeing720 (talk) 02:17, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Actually, it may be possible for someone to "become President" more than two times. If a 2-term President was later elected as Vice President, and the newly elected President immediately resigned it would not technically be a violation of the 22nd Amendment. However, its interaction with the 12th Amendment which states no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice President of the United States seems to disallow this extremely unlikely situation from occurring. It has never been tested for the Supreme Court to rule on the matter. Hoof Hearted (talk) 14:50, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 June 2015

Please change the listed state of origin for U.S. Grant from Illinois to Ohio because Grant was born in Point Pleasant, Ohio, and spent his entire youth there. Thanks you. Hilesba (talk) 03:48, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the "state" column actually represents - Obama's is listed as Illinois when he was born in Hawaii, and Eisenhower's is both New York and Kansas when he was born in Texas Cannolis (talk) 04:04, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Ihe list is the state where they were living when they were elected President - to quote from the Illinois article:-
"Three U.S. presidents have been elected while living in Illinois: Abraham Lincoln, Ulysses S. Grant, and Barack Obama. Additionally, Ronald Reagan, whose political career was based in California, was the only US President born and raised in Illinois."
This all correlates with this table - but I agree it is confusing - the column needs a note to clarify this. - Arjayay (talk) 07:43, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
I strongly prefer leaving this information out of this table, and continue linking to List of Presidents of the United States by home state which goes into these details ("state of primary affiliation" and "place of birth"). Hoof Hearted (talk) 20:25, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 August 2015

I would like to request that in the living former presidents section that besides mentioning the most recent president to die, namely Gerald Ford, the section also make of note of the most recently serving president to die, namely Ronald Reagan. This is done in the articles of lists of state governors in their sections of living former office holders, so I see no reason why the same shouldn't be done here as well. 2601:241:300:36C8:21B:63FF:FEBC:D7EE (talk) 23:32, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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. TrueCRaysball | #RaysUp 23:57, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

This is the requestor. It's not so much a change as it is an addition. I'm just requesting that in the section listing the living former presidents, since you already note the most recent president to die, that you also note the most recently serving president, if different, as such a thing is also done on various gubernatorial lists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:300:36C8:4547:3CFA:7F11:782B (talk) 22:39, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Timeline

Any idea why it excludes Washington and Adams? --SchutteGod (not logged in) 70.181.183.169 (talk) 19:52, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Fix HerberT Hoover link in Timeline

The link in the timeline below the table to HerberT Hoover actually redirects to HERBER Hoover, with no t. This can be fixed pretty easily. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrBear86 (talkcontribs) 22:25, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Herbert Hoover is from Iowa not California

Seriously, does nobody check this stuff?173.28.132.78 (talk) 19:52, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

The presence and absence of the "State" column has a history within this article. Please see archived discussions:
Any thoughts on the continued existence of the "State" column?
Secondly, I would recommend the inclusion of two templates.
First, Template:Hidden to stipulate the definition of contentious or confusing columns OR stipulate columns added without prior discussion on talk page will be promptly reverted.
Second, Template:Editnotice as a secondary measure to alert editors seeking to add columns that numerous attempts have been made or discussed in the past. They may wish to consult archived discussions to learn the arguments and outcomes of the discussions. Or, consult the Talk:List of Presidents of the United States/FAQ page. Specifically, "Q[uestion] 6: Please add another column to the list for ___________.," answer, and "Related Talk discussions."
Mitchumch (talk) 20:27, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
The archived discussions on this suck ballz. If you ask anyone who is even remotely aware of where a president is from, "What is Herbert Hoover's state?" They'll say "Iowa." Nobody, I mean NOBODY would say "California" unless they were a nitwit. With this kind of argumentative bullshit on Wikipedia, no wonder you don't even consider yourself a reliable source for your own articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.129.196.116 (talk) 19:32, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Correction - nobody would say "California" unless they were a nitwit or unless they were the Library of Congress, or just about every published source on the election of 1928. At the time of the election Hoover's legal residence was in Stanford, California. Would you say Obama's "state" is Hawaii rather than Illinois? Hoof Hearted (talk) 20:27, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

President Grant

Grant was born in Ohio, not Illinois — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.161.222.252 (talk) 03:07, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

The column is (rather vaguely) labeled "State" and is meant to be "state of primary affiliation". While Grant's birth state was Ohio, his home prior to his election was in Galena, Illinois. The Library of Congress contains the official Senate record for the election, which states that Grant was elected from the state of Illinois, not Ohio. The official House record for the election, also preserved on the Library of Congress website, says the same thing.
I've asked before: can we please remove the state column to avoid this kind of confusion? (See the previous discussion also.) Let List of Presidents of the United States by home state serve as the location for this information, which makes the distinction between "state of primary affiliation" and "place of birth". Hoof Hearted (talk) 20:14, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Hoof Hearted I support removing it. It has generated confusion and complaints. Hence, an unstable element within the article. I would also add other elements as stated in the above section. Mitchumch (talk) 20:54, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Photos vs. paintings?

There seems to be an incipient edit war here, and what discussion there is appears to be taking place in edit summaries rather than here on the talk page.

Time (UTC) / Permalink / differences Pics/Editor Edit summary
23:10, 09 November 2015 (UTC)
(diff)
paintings
Spartan7W
Major overhaul of list table to new style. Using DNC and RNC official colors, and official color for Federalists (black). Official painted portraits used.
23:58, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
(diff)
photos
Avrand6
there had been a general consensus to use daguerreotypes and photographs as they portray the presidents more accurately
24:09, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
(diff)
paintings
Spartan7W
That consensus is for infobox portraits. This is a list of presidents, using painted portraits is uniform. Additionally, the old table format has text on color, visibility, and other issues. This is accessible and eliminates text on color
01:24, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
(diff)
photos
Avrand6
I would disagree and say it is not the standard to have paintings rather than actual photographs, if you look at other lists of officeholders, you will see this. Photographs, unless grainy and low-quality, are always preferable to paintings
01:39, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
(diff)
paintings
YBG
Before reinstating your edit, please discuss all issues -- picture type and accessibility -- on the talk page
04:30, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
(diff)
photos
Avrand6
Changing the Paintings to Photographs
06:16, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
(diff)
paintings
Spartan7W
replace images with proper photographs) updated

@Spartan7W and Avrand6: -- Any chance of trying to conduct the discussion here? YBG (talk) 06:34, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Comparison

Here is a table with the pics from four recent versions of the page. The letters A/B/C/D show which versions use the same image (though sometimes presented at in a different size). Hope it helps the discussion. YBG (talk) 02:02, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

'Twas the plan. I give my full statement tomorrow.   Spartan7W §   06:47, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Spartan and prefer the paintings. They place all the presidents on neutral ground.--William S. Saturn (talk) 07:25, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
With 20th- and 21st-century presidents, the photos are usually better at showing what they actually looked like, so I prefer them. --Coemgenus (talk) 11:23, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

─────────────────────────A sitting or former president himself would tell you he is the "custodian" of the office, an office which serves and represents the American people. As I did with the various series boxes, I felt that a uniform standard best portrayed them in a neutral manner, and represented the office properly. In this list, we can prefer photographs over paintings, and that is well and good. However, this list shows the progression of the office, and the men who held it, from 1789 to the present. Now, compared to a painting or mosaic of a 5th-century Pope which probably bears little or even no resemblance to the actual person, these portraits were done by skilled artists, and if you compare them to photographs, look impressively life-like and similar (in fact, probably the examples of least likeness are the copyright-protected of Ford and Reagan).

If you go to the White House, you'll see these very portraits hung on its walls, no photographs are there. From a practical standpoint, each biographical article has a photograph, where available, and that is the way it should be. This provides us some flexibility in what we do here, as the reader can click on the large name of the president and see their pictures. One advantage the paintings have is that they are all in high quality color, and it gives uniformity and aesthetic quality, which is a valid consideration. Especially for early presidents, like JQA, Jackson, Van Buren, and Tyler, the photographs do not show them as they were in office, they are much older, nearer the end of their lives. By using paintings, we have a single standard: high quality, very attractive, all-color, historically significant, and representative of the office. No progression of photographic technology, between daguerreotype and photographs (and photo quality), between black and white and color, between film and digital (and restoration in between). No bizarre firmament between the glowing portraits of the founding fathers, and a schism between vibrant Monroe and old black-and-white Adams. To keep consistency, uniformity, historical significance, progression of the office, and aesthetic considerations, we should do this. If we did not have bios of the presidents, if this were all we had, then photographs would be warranted, but the fact we do, and that is already done, provides the opportunity to display the office and its officers in a very representative, historical, aesthetic, and uniform way.   Spartan7W §   15:41, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't sure what criteria to base my preference/opinion on, but Spartan's concern about showing the progression of officeholders rather than the progression of technology has settled it for me. IMHO, this requires us to avoid all of the early photographs. But copyright and availability restricts us from using portraits for Ford, Reagan, and Obama. It seems to me we have two possible choices:
  1. Use portraits until decent color photographs are available, then consistently use photographs
  2. Use portraits until copyright restrictions impede (Ford), then consistently use photographs
  3. Use portraits always except when copyright/availability impede (Ford, Reagan, Obama)
  4. Use portraits then switch to photographs at a point where the transition is least noticeable (which might be close to or the same as #1 or #2)
Overall, I prefer option 4 for aesthetics, but the other options have the advantage of using more objective standards. I base my thoughts on thinking about it while looking at the plain text I am editing here on the talk page, so I would cheerfully bow to others' opinions based actually looking at the pictures. I think we can agree that the criterion ought to be selecting an option that draws the least attention to the changes and transitions between portrait technologies. YBG (talk) 18:54, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Keep in mind that from about 2007 to 2013 the official paintings were used to maintain consistency and neutrality among the presidents.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:05, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Basically, Ford and Reagan are unavailable due to copyright. Obama is the sitting president, and thus has no official painted portrait. Bush 43's wasn't unveiled until 3 years out of office. Plus, if you look at the portraits of color-era presidents, the painting is pretty close to the picture, with regard to accuracy and resemblance. In fact, FDR aged so much that his 1933 first photograph looks nothing like he did by the war or by the end of his life.   Spartan7W §   19:54, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Comment

This section is about the relationship between this list and other lists YBG (talk) 18:24, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello everyone. Firstly, I must say that I have no desire to jump into the ongoing discussion, so I won't comment the issues raised above. Secondly, I have even less desire to enter into an edit war (and I hope you guys will be able to avoid it too). I truly hope that you will manage to find a solution here. I just want to remind all of you about a very important issue. There is an article, closely related to this one - List of Vice Presidents of the United States. All of you should have in mind that any (major) overhaul of this article would require the same overhaul on the list of vice presidents, for the sake of consistency. These two articles should be as much similar as possible, both in terms of data and their visual appearance. So, if you guys decide to keep the current version of this article, there must be some major work on the list of vice presidents. Cheers! --Sundostund (talk) 17:22, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I am at Nelson Rockefeller in my sandbox, I will be done with the overhaul by this evening, PST.   Spartan7W §   17:25, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
I am glad to hear that, Spartan. Our thinking is on the same line - keeping these two articles as much similar as possible. --Sundostund (talk) 17:28, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
My list of Speakers is also to this format, but some editor objects to a separate page so that's a different talk page issue.   Spartan7W §   17:32, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Discussion continued

I believe that the list should be photographs at least starting at Van Buren, since the Photos do show JQ Adams and Jackson later in life. I am Strongly against using Paintings for anyone After Jackson, since with Van Buren starts the good quality photographs. Photogrtaphs show people more accuratley what the faces of the people looked like, While, If you look at Nixons Official Painting for example, It is at best a mediocre representation of him. Kennedy's portrait doesn't even show his face, it shows him looking down, away from the viewer. While this may be a statement artistically about "not wanting to paint the eyes of a dead man", It is very unhelpful to the viewer. Hoover's portrait shows him as an old man, much later than he was ever in office. William Harrisons portrait looks horrible, as does Jacksons, and John Adams portrait makes him look sunburned, and George Bush Sr looks tan. Paintings have more, not less flaws with representing the person they potray. We have invented this great technology that captures images, so why use older, more inferior images? As such, I am opposed to changing to paintings as they are less accurate, can be misleading, and sometimes look little like the person in the portrait, as well as possible bias by the artist. A transition to paintings would be a sad step backwards. AvRand (talk) 23:28, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

So you're basing your view on your own artistic judgment of the official portraits? That's simply your opinion and makes absolutely no difference. --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:20, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

No, I'm basing it on the fact that photographs are more accurate then paintings and better show what the presidents looked like. AvRand (talk) 02:08, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Have you actually compared the two? And how would you know what Adams was supposed to look like? Maybe he was sunburned or of reddish complexion. I'm sure John Trumbull, one of the most important painters of historical genre in U.S. History, knows what he's doing. Harrison's portrait looks quite like the 1 daguerreotype in existence. For Bush 41, that's called lighting, for Nixon, you're calling that mediocre? For Jackson, how do you know what he looked like in 1829? Surely more youthful than the raisin from the 1840s.   Spartan7W §   05:57, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
The photograph of Jackson was taken just a few months before he died. It is not representative of what he looked like when he was in office.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:22, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

@Spartan7W and Avrand6: I thought the reason for having a discussion was to try to stop editing and reverting before a discussion has run its course. Now I know that sometimes a picture is worth 1,000 words and so showing is better than telling. When I've been in that position, I've gone ahead and done the edit, immediately self-reverted, and then placed a permalink on the talk page so that others could weigh in on whether my edit was an improvement or not. But at the very least, if you insist on making an edit that is bound to be controversial, make a mention of it on this talk page along with your reasons. YBG (talk) 08:34, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

John Tyler Party Color

Shouldn't the Party Color strip for John Tyler be split in two, with the top half remaining the Whig Color, but the Bottom half being the independent White Color? AvRand (talk) 04:38, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I can't find any resource of presidents which definitively says that Tyler was an independent. He broke with the Whigs on issues, but was a Whig when he ascended to office, and at that time, independents weren't commonplace.   Spartan7W §   05:49, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Well It says that he's independent in the party column, so Either that should be changed or the party color should be changed so that they match. AvRand (talk) 05:56, 12 November 2015 (UTC)


Semi-protected edit request on 18 November 2015

Please change Herbert Hoover's state from California to Iowa. He was born in West Branch, IA and was the only President to come out of Iowa.

97.127.180.177 (talk) 02:28, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: The "state" column actually refers to "home state", or the state that president is most associated with, not the state they were born in. Note that Obama's state is listed as Illinois. Cannolis (talk) 20:29, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Just a note for the record. State is for home state, which is distinct from birth state. And home is defined by voter registration. This is why Nixon is listed both for New York and California, as he was a resident of NY in '68 but of CA in '72. Same with Eisenhower.   Spartan7W §   14:28, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 December 2015

Barack Obama's state is Hawaii not Illinois. PlagueRider01 (talk) 12:15, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: "State" here refers to home state, not birth state. While Obama was born in Hawaii, his home state is Illinois. Thanks, /wia🎄/tlk 14:57, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Party affiliation of vice presidents

It's unclear why the column indicating party affiliation of vice presidents is blank next to Thomas R. Marshall, vice president in the Woodrow Wilson administration. Marshall was a Democrat. Shouldn't the column to the left of his name be blue to indicate that?Nairdainreverse (talk) 15:24, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

@Nairdainreverse: Yes good catch. A small typo meant the color wasn't rendered to the box. The code was there but it wasn't transposing. Thanks!.   Spartan7W §   16:19, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
@Spartan7W: I believe the problem was fixed, but somehow it's gotten unfixed. The party color next to Thomas R. Marshall, Woodrow Wilson's vice president, is missing again. How do we restore the party color? Nairdainreverse (talk) 13:42, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 December 2015

Harry S. Truman needs to be changed to Harry S Truman. The letter S was his middle name, not an abbreviation for another name. 104.55.53.169 (talk) 21:48, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Layout for the president-elect

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Zeroth draft
  Democratic
President Previous service Presidency[a] Party Election Vice President
Hillary Clinton by Gage Skidmore 2.jpg Hillary Clinton
Born 1947
(71 years old)
67th
United States Secretary of State

(2009–2013)
45 January 20, 2017

Elect
Democratic 58
(2016)
Tim Kaine
  Republican
President Previous service Presidency[a] Party Election Vice President
Donald Trump August 19, 2015 (cropped).jpg Donald Trump
Born 1946
(72 years old)
None
[b]
45 January 20, 2017

Elect
Republican 58
(2016)
Mike Pence

--Nevéselbert 22:55, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for broaching the subject Nevé; looks like there was much edit-warring and talk page discussion about this 8 years ago. It would definitely be wonderful to have less tumult this time. The archived discussion from then can be found HERE. Once the editing/reverting died down in early Dec. '08, the consensus was to separate President-elect Obama from the main Presidents list. He had his own section titled President–elect (10:37 January 8, 2009 version HERE). This would, IMO, be a good precedent to follow come November 9, after a winner has clearly been determined and kept with until after the new President has been sworn into office on January 20.
Here are a couple suggested tweaks for your table design.
A) change the 1st column heading from "President" to "President-elect"; and
B) rather then "January 20, 2017 <br> Elect", state, "Inauguration <br> scheduled: <br> January 20, 2017".
Cheers! Drdpw (talk) 01:00, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
I prefer having a separate section for the President and Vice President elect. It seems the best way to add the new information while at the same time keeping it clearly separate from the existing information. But the one-row table should have the same format as the existing table. YBG (talk) 04:27, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
YBG, I do too, especially given the 2008 precedent. Question, by same format, do ayou mean the same but with appropriate labeling and information differences, like those I've described above (otherwise we'll get mired in the "s/he's not president yet" quagmire)? Drdpw (talk) 06:20, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Drdpw, absolutely agree. YBG (talk) 15:19, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

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

First draft

President-elect

President-elect Previous service Incoming presidency Party Election Vice president–elect
If Clinton should be elected ...
Hillary Clinton by Gage Skidmore 2.jpg Hillary Clinton
Born 1947
(71 years old)
67th
United States Secretary of State

(2009–2013)
45 -821 days until
Inauguration Day

January 20, 2017
Democratic 58
(2016)
Tim Kaine
If Trump should be elected ...
Donald Trump August 19, 2015 (cropped).jpg Donald Trump
Born 1946
(72 years old)
None
[b]
45 -821 days until
Inauguration Day

January 20, 2017
Republican 58
(2016)
Mike Pence

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

Further discussion

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

Thanks. I should have made another again for Donald Trump, but the very thought of him winning makes my stomach churn.--Nevéselbert 22:25, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
@YBG: Is there any way the width of the columns could be modified, in order to match the dimensions of the #List of presidents table?--Nevéselbert 23:43, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Column widths can be forced, I've done it in tables on various pages in the past. It could certainly be done for this President-elect section. On the other hand, this section is a temporary one and will exist for only 10 weeks. Drdpw (talk) 00:18, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

I like the idea of thinking forward and trying to set the best precedent possible. Unfortunately, anything that is done now to make the widths match in two separate tables would not be able to be easily followed in four or eight years unless the current format were to remain unchanged in the mean time. Fat chance of that! That is to say, if you specify the column percentages, those percentages would not be valid unless no one changed the format over the course of four/eight years.
I think the only way to guarantee the column widths match in an easily followed manner would be to have the president-elect be in the same table, which I think would be problematic. Although it may be possible to have them actually in the same table with the mere illusion of being in separate tables.
Personally, I don't see much benefit to having column widths match; it comes in a distant 5th after (1) clearly labeling the POTUS/VP-elects as such; (2) keeping them clearly separate from the (lame duck) incumbents and (3) setting a good precedent for the future and (4) making that precedent easy-to-follow. But if the consensus is to force the column widths to match identically, I'd be willing to help figure out the best way to do that. YBG (talk) 02:19, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
I've figured out how to keep them separate and yet force the column widths to match in the sandbox. I put the ===President-elect=== header inside a |colspan=9 cell with the borders set up so that it looks like a completely separate table even though it is not. In the examples, I only included the main table headers and the Obama rows. Notice that the table widths are not the same. This is because the able widths are determined by all rows in the table, even the President-elect row. The width of the previous service column is determined by the Clinton row in one case and by the Obama row in the other case. YBG (talk) 04:18, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

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

If, as GoodDay suggests, we add (Clinton or Trump) to the existing list on November 9, perhaps the POTUS-elect could be separated from the current & past PsOTUS by inserting a header row between Obama and POTUS-45,like this:
President–elect Current service Presidency[a] Party Election Vice President–elect
Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 21:59, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
I don't honestly see the need to split Obama's would-be-successor from the list, while that person waits to be inaugurated. We don't do this for any of the US state governors & lieutenant governors. GoodDay (talk) 22:05, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Because, based on past history (11/2008), unless there's some separation between the POTUS-elect and the current & past PsOTUS, there will be multiple contentious edits following the election made by people proclaiming "s/he's not president yet!" Drdpw (talk) 22:16, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Well, as long yas make sure to do the same type of addition at List of Vice Presidents of the United States (i.e. VP-elect) as here. Then, I reckon there's no problem. GoodDay (talk) 22:57, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Alternative draft

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

Second draft
If Clinton should be elected ...
George-W-Bush.jpeg George W. Bush
Born 1946
(72 years old)
[1][2]
46th
Governor of Texas

(1995–2000)
43 January 20, 2001

January 20, 2009
Republican 54
(2000)
Dick Cheney
55
(2004)
President Barack Obama.jpg Barack Obama
Born 1961
(57 years old)
[3][4]
U.S. Senator from Illinois
(2005–2008)
44 January 20, 2009

Incumbent
Democratic 56
(2008)
Joe Biden
57
(2012)
Incoming presidency
President-elect Previous service Presidency Party Election Vice president-elect
Hillary Clinton by Gage Skidmore 2.jpg Hillary Clinton
Born 1947
(71 years old)
[5]
67th
United States Secretary of State

(2009–2013)
45 Beginning
January 20, 2017

(−821 days from now)
Democratic 58
(2016)
Tim Kaine
If Trump should be elected ...
George-W-Bush.jpeg George W. Bush
Born 1946
(72 years old)
[6][7]
46th
Governor of Texas

(1995–2000)
43 January 20, 2001

January 20, 2009
Republican 54
(2000)
Dick Cheney
55
(2004)
President Barack Obama.jpg Barack Obama
Born 1961
(57 years old)
[3][8]
U.S. Senator from Illinois
(2005–2008)
44 January 20, 2009

Incumbent
Democratic 56
(2008)
Joe Biden
57
(2012)
Incoming presidency
President-elect Previous service Presidency Party Election Vice president-elect
Donald Trump August 19, 2015 (cropped).jpg Donald Trump
Born 1946
(72 years old)
[9]
Chairman of
The Trump Organization
(1971–2016)
(no prior elected office)
45 Beginning
January 20, 2017

(−821 days from now)
Republican 58
(2016)
Mike Pence

References

  1. ^ "Biography of President George W. Bush". The White House. February 25, 2007. Retrieved January 12, 2009.
  2. ^ "George W. Bush – Republican Party – 43rd President – American Presidents". History. Retrieved January 12, 2009.
  3. ^ a b "President Barack Obama". The White House. January 20, 2009. Retrieved January 20, 2009.
  4. ^ "Barack Obama – Democratic Party – 44th President – American Presidents". History. Retrieved January 12, 2009.
  5. ^ "Hillary Rodham Clinton". The White House. Retrieved August 22, 2006.
  6. ^ "Biography of President George W. Bush". The White House. February 25, 2007. Retrieved January 12, 2009.
  7. ^ "George W. Bush – Republican Party – 43rd President – American Presidents". History. Retrieved January 12, 2009.
  8. ^ "Barack Obama – Democratic Party – 44th President – American Presidents". History. Retrieved January 12, 2009.
  9. ^ Jamaica Hospital (June 14, 1946). "Certificate of Birth: Donald John Trump" (PDF). Fox News Channel. Archived (PDF) from the original on April 9, 2011. Retrieved May 31, 2016.
Looks great! And you get full marks for not duplicating the error in my sandbox example. Plus, extra credit for wrapping it all in multiple {{cot}}/{{cob}}! YBG (talk) 23:03, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Might be nice to list days until inauguration day ... right now it is showing 2 months even though it is closer to 3 months. YBG (talk) 23:06, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
@YBG: Come 22 November 2016, the days will be shown. It's just the way the {{Days from now}} template works. It only shows months until 60 days before.--Nevéselbert 23:44, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
I've fixed this by changing from {{Days from now}} to {{Age in days}}. YBG (talk) 04:14, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
I'd personally go with the way it's done at the governors & lieutenant governors lists. But, if keeping the incoming prez slightly apart from the incumbent & the others, helps avoid edit wars between Nov 8, 2016 & Jan 20, 2017? then so be it. Just be sure whatever style is adopted here; is also adopted at the VP list article. GoodDay (talk) 23:10, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Support – Thanks! — JFG talk 09:28, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Well done Nevé; just a couple cosmetic refinements to put forward: A) Rather then using the template "See also:Inauguration of (name)", link the "Inauguration of" page to "Inauguration Day" in the 2nd "Incoming presidency" cell, giving that cell a specific link rather then one to the general "presidential inauguration" article; B) Italicize the number "45" in the 1st "Incoming presidency" cell to further identify it as something that has not yet begun. See how these look in the Second draft above. Drdpw (talk) 01:29, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Made a few tweaks: added (36) and italicised this instead (frankly, having "45" in italics appears rather awkward and inconsistent vis-à-vis the above table). I also added (Lame duck) for outgoing President Obama's "Presidency" column.--Nevéselbert 20:29, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
The table was fine the way it was; it doesn't need any more links. This brief table is beginning to resemble a link farm. The "lame duck" link is of secondary importance and little more than clutter. The (36) is also clutter and of secondary importance. It also links to the "President-elect of the US" article, which is already linked-to in the column heading. The "see also" link to "United States presidential inauguration" is unnecessary, as there's a link to the (yet to be written) "Inauguration of ..." article, which will no doubt link to the broader term. Now, we could remove the "Inauguration of ..." link (leaving it out until an article is actually written & closer to the inauguration) and replace it with a link to the "presidential inauguration" article. either would work for me.
Plesase It's a clear, clean, and concise table without the latest additions. Drdpw (talk) 21:58, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
I think referring to WP:LINKFARM is a huge exaggeration. Noting that Obama is a lame-duck is neither harmful nor distracting, but merely clarifies further as to his incumbency status. Noting that Clinton (or Trump) is/will be the 36th president-elect is also useful information, indeed. However I would be inclined to remove the link (making it (36) instead) but removing the info altogether I just think is unhelpful. The layout will only stand for a couple of months, anyway.--Nevéselbert 22:27, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
@YBG and JFG: Hello again. What do you think of this slightly new layout, including (Lame duck) for Obama's column and adding (36) with an Efn note?--Nevéselbert 22:45, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Note: @Drdpw: I'll revert the changes to the draft in due course, but I just want to see what others think as well.--Nevéselbert 22:45, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Ya, my "link farm" reference was a leap too far. I just don't want to see this useful little table filled with tangential and redundant information. Drdpw (talk) 22:56, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
I think you can eliminate the (36) entirely. Either this information should be incorporated in the entire table or it should not be in the table at all. I'm not sure whether it should be in the table or not, but it clearly muddies the water by including it in the discussion of what to do about the President-elect. As for the (lame duck), I'd delete it. Or maybe just change [[Incumbent]] to [[Lame duck|Incumbent]]. YBG (talk) 22:59, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I've eliminated both (36) and (Lame duck). I've now added Efn notes instead.--Nevéselbert 23:12, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
    Kill the (36) and all the footnotes; simply link "Incumbent" to Lame duck as suggested by YBG; add Trump's occupation outside of elected office directly in the table and say "No elected office" as well; link to "Inauguration of …" can be labeled just "Inauguration", otherwise the repetition of "day" is awkward. — JFG talk 23:23, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
    I personally can't see anything wrong with the footnotes. However I have changed "None" to "No elected office" for Trump, though.--Nevéselbert 23:29, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
    I think the extended footnotes add unnecessary clutter without significant benefit. All information related to (36) is, IMHO, insignificant and should be canned -- unless a discussion leads to a consensus that it should be included for everyone. The significant information - i.e., incumbent still serving and president-elect not yet serving - is better included in the table itself using wikilinks (for incumbent) or dates (for not yet serving). And re Trump's experience, follow the example in other similar lists, and show the most significant service. Yea, the leading the Trump organization is private sector but the span of influence may be larger than, say, a collector of ports or an ambassador or budget director or state assemblyman, which rate mention in the VP article. YBG (talk) 06:58, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
    One more thing: I think it has been worth the trouble of having two mock-ups here instead of a single one with fake names -- some of the issues would not have been apparent without using the actual candidates. Once this has settled down a bit more, it would be good to mock up the two potential VPs-elect matching the consensus format from here. YBG (talk) 07:08, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
    Discovered that articles for the Planned presidential transition of Donald Trump and the Planned presidential transition of Hillary Clinton have been in existence for a few months now. One of them will (most likely) be renamed Presidential transition of ... in a couple weeks. I suggest that we replace the "|further=H.C/D.T presidential campaign, 2016" link with a "|further=Presidential transition of H.C./D.T." link, as the focus here is on the individual's pending ("germinating") presidency rather then their campaign for the office. Drdpw (talk) 16:32, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
  • @JFG, YBG, and Drdpw: Made a few changes:
    1. Removed footnotes & added the Planned presidency of articles to {{Further information}}
    2. Changed title of subsection from Incoming president to Incoming presidency
    3. Changed title of column header from Incoming presidency to just Presidency
I also made another design tweak not really worth going into. It all seems rather straightforward now, without clutter.--Nevéselbert 20:54, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Generally very good.
(1) Why not remove the campaign link completely?
(2) What about this?
Begins on <br> [[Inauguration of Hillary Clinton|January 20, 2017]] <br> ''({{age in days||January 20, 2017|show unit=full}} from now)''
Begins on <br> [[Inauguration of Donald Trump|January 20, 2017]] <br> ''({{age in days||January 20, 2017|show unit=full}} from now)''
Begins on <br> January 20, 2017 <br> (−821 days from now)
Begins on <br> January 20, 2017 <br> (−821 days from now)
(3) You want someone else to draft something re Trump's previous service? Still need to remove the {{efn}}
Thanks!!! YBG (talk) 21:43, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
@YBG: Done. I'm not sure what else to do with Trump (besides, he's hopefully going to lose anyway). Clinton seems ready to go.--Nevéselbert 21:55, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
P.S. removed the campaign link.--Nevéselbert 21:58, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
I've tweaked it a bit more. If you think it needs discussion, go ahead and WP:BRD and we can go from there. YBG (talk) 22:26, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps two lines are a little too much, reduced it to one again. Restored Inauguration Day also.--Nevéselbert 22:37, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm pleased with the way it looks now; two thumbs-up. Drdpw (talk) 22:46, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
I had Inauguration day pipe-linked, but I don't mind it being out in the open. However, I do think that the phrase "Begins on" is important. YBG (talk) 01:15, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Let me clarify. IMO, either we need to say "Begins with" or the like at the beginning or else we need to have the phrase "xx days until" at the beginning. YBG (talk) 01:22, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
YBG, is this more like what you had in mind? Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 01:29, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes, thanks! YBG (talk) 03:21, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
@Neve-selbert: he's hopefully going to lose anyway – You're so convinced that you kept the Trump link pointing to the hypothetical Clinton inauguration Face-smile.svg – Fixed it for you. — JFG talk 03:30, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Changed links from "Planned presidential transition of …" to "Presidential transition of …" because the "planned" page of the winner will be moved there as soon as the results are in, as happened for Obama in 2008. — JFG talk 03:37, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Piped "Incumbent" to "Lame duck" as suggested by YBG earlier. Also removed italics in one alternative. — JFG talk 03:48, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Inserted Trump's previous job, which he would resign if elected, as was done in the primaries page. — JFG talk 03:58, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Made a couple changes; linked the transition articles to the (XX days from now), linked to the Inauguration article in a hatnote.--Nevéselbert 03:46, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
@Neve-selbert: Doesn't make much sense to put the generic "Inauguration Day" in the hatnote: by the time this draft is inserted in the article, we will have a president-elect, so better point to his/her transition page directly. Revert? — JFG talk 03:52, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
@JFG: The transition article is already linked in small italic text, i.e. (−821 days from now).--Nevéselbert 04:04, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Right but it doesn't look very informative, getting close to a MOS:SUBMARINE case. I prefer the prior version with hatnote "Further information: Presidential transition of …". @YBG and Drdpw: Opinions on this?
Quick question: since when has serving as a chairman of a private company been considered a public service?--Nevéselbert 04:08, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Of course it's not public service, but it's still his previous service as the table header says. (Take any CEO bio, you'll see "S/he is serving as CEO of Acme, Inc.") The fact that he is not a career politician is a cornerstone of his campaign, so it makes sense. Anyway, the draft also says "no prior elected office" so that's clear. — JFG talk 04:21, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
The "See also: Inauguration Day" hat note is unnecessary; I prefer the "Further information: Presidential transition of …" hat note that was there. I also don't like the "transition of" link being hidden within the "XX days until" notation. Drdpw (talk) 04:28, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
I tend to agree that it is pointless to link to the generic "Inauguration Day"; the reader would be much more interested in the specific inauguration. Unfortunately, the link we provide is not obvious to the reader. At one time I thought it was rather nice to put the links in the table cell as piped links, but I see now that this does the reader a disservice - essentially hiding the links the reader is likely to be of interest. Consequently, I recommend removing the generic "Inauguration Day" link from the See Also, and replacing it with clear, unpiped links to "Presidential transition of …" and "Inauguration of …", and then we can eliminate the corresponding hidden (piped) wikilinks from the body of the table. YBG (talk) 04:31, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
We seem to have consenus here.  DoneJFG talk 04:43, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
As a pretty neat compromise, linking the "Begins on January 20, 2017" to Inauguration Day is absolutely harmless for those wanting to read on about the historic nature of the occasion. I like it the way it is, now. Seems like we have a consensus.--Nevéselbert 04:51, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Very nice! I have one more tweak - a really minor one. The "45" and "January 20, 2017" are slightly misaligned. I can think of four alternatives: (a) add a 2nd <hr>; (b) leave it as is; (c) change the <hr> to <br> or (d) add a line "Inauguration Day" (possibly wikilinked) between "Begins on" and "January 20, 2017", so that the eye doesn't try to make the lines line up. I generally prefer (d) > (c) > (b) > (a), would be glad to abide by whatever others prefer. YBG (talk) 05:08, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
I employed suggestion (d). How does it look? Drdpw (talk) 05:41, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
I'd go for (a) but with (b) as my second choice. I've implemented it.--Nevéselbert 05:51, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
@YBG: I changed "Begins on" to just plain "Beginning", since this seems rather straightforward.--Nevéselbert 05:57, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
I don't like the unnecessary line under beginning and prefer "Inauguration Day" linking with "Inauguration of ...". Looks neat and balanced. Drdpw (talk) 06:07, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
I like 'Beginning' better than my 'Begins on'. And I surprised myself - although I almost wrote '(yuck)' with option (a) (two hr), it turns out I really like that one! It is much more balanced than having just one hr - especially if you put <small>''Beginning''</small>. And I much prefer having the unpiped wikilinks so it is less surprising to the reader. But we are really in the weeds now. YBG (talk) 06:23, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm all for clear links (see my prior edits about MOS:SUBMARINE) but frankly, "Inauguration Day" bludgeons the cell here; moving it back to the hatnote. Cleaner without the horizontal line too, and simpler markup with {{nowrap}}. — JFG talk 06:58, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
👍 Like YBG (talk) 07:30, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Agree Drdpw (talk) 08:12, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────── I re-added a single <hr/> as I feel this neatly separates better with than without. Wiki-linking to Inauguration Day is also completely harmless. It seems fine now.--Nevéselbert 19:17, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

It was fine before; no separation is necessary. Why must you change things even after consensus has been reached? Drdpw (talk) 19:27, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
I don't see what was wrong with the line. There was nothing wrong with it and you said I'm pleased with the way it looks now; two thumbs-up. It's absolutely fine now.--Nevéselbert 19:37, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
The problem here is that you keep tinkering with the layout even after you and everyone else signs off on it. For how long will the current layout remain "absolutely fine" to you? Drdpw (talk) 19:55, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
I just really adore the line and the piped link to Inauguration Day. I'll be fine with anything else.--Nevéselbert 19:57, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
@Drdpw: Alright. I'll agree to getting rid of the line. But I still think the Inauguration Day link is useful and should be kept.--Nevéselbert 23:39, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
I simply abhor the agree the misalignment that the single <hr> is unfortunate forces - the 45 looks like it should line up horizontally with January 20, 2017 but it does not. It's like fingernails on the blackboard to me. Here are some of the options.
45 Beginning
January 20, 2017
(xx days from now)
45 Beginning
January 20, 2017

(xx days from now)
45 Beginning
January 20, 2017

(xx days from now)
45 Beginning
Inauguration day
January 20, 2017
(xx days from now)
45 Beginning
Inauguration day
January 20, 2017
(xx days from now)
45
Inauguration Day
January 20, 2017
(Begins in xx days)
(a)
2hr
(b)
1hr
Horiz misalignment
(c)
0hr
(d)
+ID
(e)
2hr+ID
(f)
2hr+ID
"Beginning" -> "Begins in"
Other than not liking (b) because of the misalignment, I prefer the having the Inauguration Day link clear and unsurprising. I don't object to the hidden wikilink as much as I object to the misalignment, it is interesting to consider the MOS:
  • Keep piped links as intuitive as possible. Per the principle of least astonishment, make sure that the reader knows what to expect when clicking on a link. You should plan your page structure and links so that everything appears reasonable and makes sense. If a link takes readers to somewhere other than where they thought it would, it should at least take them somewhere that makes sense. — (MOS:EGG=MOS:SUBMARINE)
  • Keep piped links as transparent as possible. Do not use piped links to create "Easter egg" links, that require the reader to open them before understanding what's going on. Wikipedia is not an Advent calendar. Also remember there are people who print the articles. — (WP:EASTEREGG)
  • [D]o not use a piped link where it is possible to use a redirected term that fits well within the scope of the text. — (NOPIPE)
These citations aren't compelling, but I do think that considering we have plenty of space in the cell, it would be better to use the explicit wikilink instead of a piped one. YBG (talk) 00:34, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
YBG, I removed the line BTW. I'm fine without it.--Nevéselbert 00:48, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
I don't see what's wrong with piping Inauguration Day. That being said, I added another option: option F.--Nevéselbert 00:58, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Maybe I shouldn't have listed all those options. What we have is (c), and that's great, unless there's a groundswell supporting (a) or (e), which surprises me, because as I think I said above, initially I was totally opposed to having two <hr>. YBG (talk) 01:08, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Vice President

Here's the current POTUS version redone for the VP.

3rd draf/t - VP
If Clinton/Kaine should be elected ...
Vice President Previous service Vice-Presidency[c] Party Election President
46 Dick Cheney 3x4.jpg Dick Cheney
Born 1941
(78 years old)
[1]
17th U.S. Secretary of Defense 46 January 20, 2001

January 20, 2009
Republican 54
(2000)
George W. Bush
55
(2004)
Biden 2013 (cropped).jpg Joe Biden
Born 1942
(76 years old)
[2]
U.S. Senator
from Delaware
47 January 20, 2009

Incumbent
Democratic 56
(2008)
Barack Obama
57
(2012)

Incoming vice-president

Vice president-elect Previous service Vice-Presidency[c] Party Election President-elect
Tim Kaine, official 113th Congress photo portrait.jpg Tim Kaine
Born 1958
(61 years old)
[citation needed]
U.S. Senator
from Virginia
(2013–present)
48 Beginning
January 20, 2017

(−821 days from now)
Democratic 58
(2016)
Hillary Clinton
If Trump/Pence should be elected ...
Vice President Previous service Vice-Presidency[c] Party Election President
46 Dick Cheney 3x4.jpg Dick Cheney
Born 1941
(78 years old)
[3]
17th U.S. Secretary of Defense 46 January 20, 2001

January 20, 2009
Republican 54
(2000)
George W. Bush
55
(2004)
Biden 2013 (cropped).jpg Joe Biden
Born 1942
(76 years old)
[4]
U.S. Senator
from Delaware
47 January 20, 2009

Incumbent
Democratic 56
(2008)
Barack Obama
57
(2012)

Incoming vice-president

Vice president-elect Previous service Vice-Presidency[c] Party Election President-elect
Mike Pence by Gage Skidmore 6.jpg Mike Pence
Born 1959
(59 years old)
[citation needed]
50th Governor of Indiana
(2013–present)
48 Beginning
January 20, 2017

(−821 days from now)
Republican 58
(2016)
Donald Trump

References

  1. ^ "Richard B. Cheney - Vice President". Miller Center of Public Affairs, University of Virginia. Retrieved September 6, 2016.
  2. ^ "Joseph Biden - Vice President". Miller Center of Public Affairs, University of Virginia. Retrieved September 6, 2016.
  3. ^ "Richard B. Cheney - Vice President". Miller Center of Public Affairs, University of Virginia. Retrieved September 6, 2016.
  4. ^ "Joseph Biden - Vice President". Miller Center of Public Affairs, University of Virginia. Retrieved September 6, 2016.

Comments re the VP table

OK, here's a first stab at it. YBG (talk) 08:03, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Looks good, I stopped the Senator or Governor term in 2016 for whoever becomes VP. Why is the hatnote on presidential transition and inauguration commented out? I think it would make sense here too. — JFG talk 18:07, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Note: It's possible that even if elected VP, Pence may still complete his term as Governor of Indiana. Not certain, but I think the term expires before January 20, 2017. Also, Kaine doesn't have to resign from the Senate until just before Noone EST, January 20, 2017 :) GoodDay (talk) 23:49, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Good point. I've changed the "-?" to "-present" on both. This will be accurate up until the moment the VP-elect resigns their former position, at which point it can be changed to "-2016" or "-2017" as appropriate. YBG (talk) 05:18, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Please link "beginning January 20, 2017" with Inauguration Day, as it is for the President-elect. Drdpw (talk) 20:05, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Looks like you (or someone else) has already done this. YBG (talk) 05:18, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Any thoughts about putting an edit notice on the article? YBG (talk) 05:18, 31 October 2016 (UTC)


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

President-elect final draft

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This version has reached local consensus and is ready to be inserted in the List of Presidents of the United States when election results are announced. Please do not modify it.

Final draft
If Clinton should be elected ...
George-W-Bush.jpeg George W. Bush
Born 1946
(72 years old)
[1][2]
46th
Governor of Texas

(1995–2000)
43 January 20, 2001

January 20, 2009
Republican 54
(2000)
Dick Cheney
55
(2004)
President Barack Obama.jpg Barack Obama
Born 1961
(57 years old)
[3][4]
U.S. Senator from Illinois
(2005–2008)
44 January 20, 2009

Incumbent
Democratic 56
(2008)
Joe Biden
57
(2012)
Incoming presidency
President-elect Previous service Presidency Party Election Vice president-elect
Hillary Clinton by Gage Skidmore 2.jpg Hillary Clinton
Born 1947
(71 years old)
[5]
67th
United States Secretary of State

(2009–2013)
45 Beginning
January 20, 2017

(−821 days from now)
Democratic 58
(2016)
Tim Kaine
If Trump should be elected ...
George-W-Bush.jpeg George W. Bush
Born 1946
(72 years old)
[6][7]
46th
Governor of Texas

(1995–2000)
43 January 20, 2001

January 20, 2009
Republican 54
(2000)
Dick Cheney
55
(2004)
President Barack Obama.jpg Barack Obama
Born 1961
(57 years old)
[3][8]
U.S. Senator from Illinois
(2005–2008)
44 January 20, 2009

Incumbent
Democratic 56
(2008)
Joe Biden
57
(2012)
Incoming presidency
President-elect Previous service Presidency Party Election Vice president-elect
Donald Trump August 19, 2015 (cropped).jpg Donald Trump
Born 1946
(72 years old)
[9]
Chairman of
The Trump Organization
(1971–2016)
(no prior elected office)
45 Beginning
January 20, 2017

(−821 days from now)
Republican 58
(2016)
Mike Pence

References

  1. ^ "Biography of President George W. Bush". The White House. February 25, 2007. Retrieved January 12, 2009.
  2. ^ "George W. Bush – Republican Party – 43rd President – American Presidents". History. Retrieved January 12, 2009.
  3. ^ a b "President Barack Obama". The White House. January 20, 2009. Retrieved January 20, 2009.
  4. ^ "Barack Obama – Democratic Party – 44th President – American Presidents". History. Retrieved January 12, 2009.
  5. ^ "Hillary Rodham Clinton". The White House. Retrieved August 22, 2006.
  6. ^ "Biography of President George W. Bush". The White House. February 25, 2007. Retrieved January 12, 2009.
  7. ^ "George W. Bush – Republican Party – 43rd President – American Presidents". History. Retrieved January 12, 2009.
  8. ^ "Barack Obama – Democratic Party – 44th President – American Presidents". History. Retrieved January 12, 2009.
  9. ^ Jamaica Hospital (June 14, 1946). "Certificate of Birth: Donald John Trump" (PDF). Fox News Channel. Archived (PDF) from the original on April 9, 2011. Retrieved May 31, 2016.

I'm thinking of making a test edit (that I will revert within seconds) for Clinton & Trump, just to show what the draft will look like at its full width. Would this be okay?--Nevéselbert 21:32, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

I think it would be better if you did not. Why not cut and paste the whole article or the section into the sandbox? That seems the more appropriate place. YBG (talk) 03:24, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
I just want to double-check with everyone that we're all A-OK with the draft above, preventing any edit wars come Election Night. @YBG, Drdpw, and JFG: Just one last question: is the draft (as of this writing) at #Alternative draft acceptable, or are additional tweaks necessary? Thanks.--Nevéselbert 08:24, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
I believe the POTUS & VPOTUS -elect drafts are ready for a rest until the dust settles (hopefully) on election night. Will someone will be vigilant and stop people from jumping the gun or introducing "unsanctioned" material to the president & vice president lists that night? Perhaps both pages should be Semi-protected, or even Extended confirmed protected, for Election Day and the day after. Drdpw (talk) 17:02, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
@Neve-selbert, Drdpw, and YBG: Thanks for the ping; I thought we were done earlier too, until I saw the latest round of tweaks and comments. For what it's worth, I favor a symmetrical layout so that text alignment with other cells is preserved, and I don't think the cute horizontal lines bring any value, so I guess I support option C. However I am really opposed to the "Easter Egg" link on "Beginning January 20, 2017". If you really want to link the generic Inauguration Day in addition to the hatnote that links to this inauguration, I suggest to replace "Beginning" with "Inauguration on" and don't link the date. — JFG talk 19:37, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
@Drdpw: I think WP:WHITELOCK (pending changes) is probably the next option up. I'll try and make a request in due course. I'll most likely be active on Wikipedia come Election Night, and will update the article as soon as the winner is confirmed (as long as no-one else beats me to it).
@JFG: Linking "Beginning January 20, 2017" to Inauguration Day seems absolutely unproblematic to me. I cannot fathom as to how it undermines WP:EASTEREGG. This is a table (where text is meant to be limited to a reasonable degree), this isn't inline text. Per the link: "Do not use piped links to create "Easter egg" links, that require the reader to open them before understanding what's going on." The specific inauguration will be linked in the hatnote, most users will already understand what's going on. There is no need to mention the word "Inauguration" twice. Linking the date is also something I would like to keep, since January 20 is Inauguration Day and a federal holiday, hence it makes sense to link the date. I absolutely believe that piping is perfectly acceptable in these circumstances. It'll only last until January next year anyway. There is absolutely no need to be perfectionist. In many ways, the current revision is the perfect compromise between us all since all of our recommendations have been taken into account, including your recommendation in killing the footnotes, removing "36" and the horizontal lines from the list (as well as your adding {{nowrap}} to the table).--Nevéselbert 21:43, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm fine with the current draft. Yes, I would prefer to have the link to Inauguration Day be more apparent, but I won't press the point. I appreciate the everyone's collaboration. Oh, one other thing. When I set up the VP draft, I commented out the section hatnote as I thought it wasn't particularly relevant to the VP. If there is something more relevant to use for the hatnote, that would be fine for me, or even with the same hatnote as on the POTUS-to-be section. I'll leave that to others to decide. YBG (talk) 22:24, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
@Neve-selbert: I heard you and will not object further to your preferred way to link. @Drdpw: The current protection level is adequate; I don't think admins would apply a higher one preventively. Even if other editors beat us to inserting the president-elect their way, we can quickly replace that with our local-consensus version and then see what happens. Only if "the other side" starts vandalizing the page would a stricter protection level be justified. In order to prevent good-faith random additions, we could perhaps add an edit-notice to the page, so that the first person who starts adding the president-elect would be made aware that a consensus draft is ready to use. — JFG talk 03:49, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
I have gone ahead and created an edit notice. We're all set. — JFG talk 04:15, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Post-closure discussion

─────────────────────────I would say, for accuracy sake, seeing as though Mr. Trump would be the first president without prior public service experience, if elected, his column should be left blank. Having been Chairman of the Trump Organization is certainly a significant private-sector post, however it does not fit in the definition of "prior service" or "previous office." As a private citizen for his entire life, one cannot put the executiveship of a private organization in the same rank as public officer experience. I move to, as done in lists of Governors for example, simply put "None", or something to that effect.   Spartan7W §   20:12, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

@Spartan7W: I see your point and the current draft addresses it by noting clearly that Trump has no prior elected office. Regarding the mention of his private business, I would leave this decision to an editorial debate after the election (if Trump wins). — JFG talk 20:55, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

The above discussions have been closed, but they should be modified to take into consideration the recent change I made in column order. I'd be happy to make the changes myself, but I hesitate to do it unilaterally. YBG (talk) 02:46, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Not done See my comment below in #Order of service. — JFG talk 13:07, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

State

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

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

VP Column

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

I don't think such a parameter is necessary. @YBG: You could make a quick WP:TEST EDIT to find out.--Nevéselbert 22:37, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Test edits would only tell us what worked for a particular browser. I think it should either be (a) in all rows (both header and body) or in no rows (neither header nor body). I was just easier to go with (a) than to do all the edits required for (b). YBG (talk) 02:22, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
OK, I removed |colspan=2 from each and every row (except the first row which had to be changed from |colspan=10 to |colspan=9). Took me about 25 minutes. YBG (talk) 02:49, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
I just made the corresponding change to the VP list. And in the process, I remembered why it was 2 columns wide. At one time the VP columns on this list and the POTUS column on the VP list had a color-coded party column on every row. Then it was modified to to only include the colorbar when the party affiliations were different. Then it was eliminated entirely. As there is not much likelihood of resurrecting this, it makes sense to remove |rolspan=2 everywhere. YBG (talk) 19:11, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Order of service

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result was Reorder the columns (as shown in the next section)

I have been away from here for awhile, and made a change to move the order of service to the head of the list. A list is defined as a "any enumeration of a set of items." The only way to properly organize a list of presidents is by order of service. It works like a historical timeline. Now, the fact that the order of service has been moved to the mid of the table of the list is inexplicable. This is literally the only list on planet earth, perhaps the universe, in which the numbers enumerating the order of a list are not included at the lead of that list. It is absolutely illogical to have a list in which the means of enumeration and organization are not made the first item. No list, whether using numbers, alphabetical letters, bullet points, hash marks, or any other demarcation of a separate entry, does not place them first. This is logical, it makes sense. Any textbook, any listing anywhere else does this, because it makes sense. There is no rationale for a enumerated list to not have its enumeration where it belongs: up front   Spartan7W §   21:43, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

As I recall, YBG moved that column several weeks ago in order to pair it with the Presidency (Time in office) column. What you're saying makes sense; perhaps the presidency columns could be moved together to the 1a & 1b position? Drdpw (talk) 23:36, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
I find it rather interesting that Grover Cleveland is counted as both the 22nd and 24th U.S. president. In other lists (e.g. List of Prime Ministers of Canada) if a prime minister is elected to serve again at a later date, he is counted with the same number albeit within parenthesis (so for John A. Macdonald, he is counted as "(1)" for his second time). I think the current format is really rather helpful, as it makes clear that it's the presidencies themselves being counted rather than each president as an individual. There have been 43 presidents as of this writing, but 44 different presidencies.--Nevéselbert 00:14, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
I would not be opposed to moving the two presidency columns to the beginning (left) of the table.
Regarding Cleveland and 22/24, that is universally how it is counted in the US. It is one of those bits of trivia every school child is taught. YBG (talk) 00:50, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
I have moved the Presidency columns to the far left, with the comparable changes to the VP article. It remains to make the comparable changes to the consensus post-election additions. YBG (talk) 02:36, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
YBG Thanks for your efforts. I was getting ready to apply the change to the president-elect draft but I'm not sure we should rush a rather impactful change of column order just a couple days before the election, when this page will get much more attention than usual. Comparing the new format with the previous one, it looks more professional to me when the portrait gallery is standing well on the left, but that's a matter of taste I suppose. I also concur with Neve-selbert's argument that the numbering matches the presidency count, which makes it awkward to place it near the President portraits. May I suggest reverting this column move, letting the election run its course and then perhaps conduct an RfC about the format in order to involve more editors towards consensus? — JFG talk 12:57, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
YBG, having both columns at the left edge looks very nice. Drdpw (talk) 17:14, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I just had to revert as the new layout looks absolutely ugly, in my opinion. Presidencies of the United States are counted, not each president individually (otherwise the present president would be #43). The new layout just looked messed up and botched; I think there should further discussion and consensus on this. Especially at a time like this, with Election Day tomorrow, lets refrain from editing the article until the next president is elected.--Nevéselbert 17:35, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

No, you did not have to revert as the new layout. If it looks "ugly" to you that is not a reason, and certainly not a reason to revert a layby that lost its WP:CON. The new layout makes more sense and had WP:CON. It also looks better to me than the old layout. tahc chat 17:53, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
That is your opinion. There was nothing at all wrong with the previous layout, which had consensus. We already prepared the layout for the president-elect on that layout. Changing the layout now at such a tumultuous time like this is both unhelpful and unconstructive.--Nevéselbert 18:42, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Spartan7W that it makes sense to have the President number in column #1.
  • Why change just before election day? I was bold precisely because the upcoming election day will bring greater scrutiny. Others will react Spartan7W's since practically every other WP table has its enumeration column (if any) on the left.
  • But is Obama the 44th President? (and not just the 44th Presidency)? Yes, according to every US history textbook, which list Cleveland as both the 22nd and 24th President (not Presidency). This convention wouldn't work with UK PMs as PMs have disjoint terms more frequently.
  • What about a consensus? There are two discussions involved:
    1. § Suggested improvements started 20:38, 6 August 2016 (UTC). Result: Major reorg of the columns
      5 participants: @YBG, Drdpw, Neve-selbert, GoodDay, and Spartan7W:
    2. § Layout for the president-elect started 22:55, 21 October 2016 (UTC). Result: Separate #45 table with same cols, consensus format.
      6 participants: @YBG, Drdpw, Neve-selbert, GoodDay, and JFG:
Discussion #2 was almost entirely about the specific contents and formatting of #45's cells, so consensus is maintained IMHO provided #1-44 and #45 are both moved. But my bold edit may have violated the spirit or letter of #1. Judging by Neve-selbert's reaction, it would have been better had I discussed it before being bold. Anyway,
President #/dates on the left President #/dates in the middle Unknown
Spartan7W‡, Drdpw‡, YBG‡, tahc, GoodDay Neve-selbert‡, JFG
‡ indicates participants in major reorg discussion. Data per YBG's understanding, please change yours if I was wrong
Unless I've misunderstood people, it seems the majority prefer the POTUS # / POTUS dates to be on the left side of the table. If someone else (ideally Neve-selbert or JFG) concurs with my reading of people's opinions and that this constitutes a consensus, and it is well before the polls close on Tuesday, then please make the necessary revert and modify the #45 tables -- or ping me and I will do it. Alternately, if others agree with JFG that such an impactful change would be better after election day, then just let it stand. If there is no new information to change my understanding of the consensus, I'll probably make the change on Wednesday or Thursday. YBG (talk) 06:19, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
I've reverted the mainspace VP table. YBG (talk) 07:23, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
@YBG: Thanks for your tally of opinions and for your rollback of the VP list pending the outcome of this discussion. My position remains that I'd like to keep things steady for about a week after the election, then we can have a proper !vote on the format. Or feel free to start an RfC just after the results are in, while eyeballs are a-plenty… — JFG talk 18:56, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

IMHO, the numbering should be restored (with or without links) to the head of the list for this article & the List of Vice Presidents of the United States article. GoodDay (talk) 13:28, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

There is literally no good reason for a LIST not to have its enumeration at the front, like all lists always. On a side note, only those presidents who have articles about their presidencies should have a link. Links for all others just send to their bio page, and thus, redundant.   Spartan7W §   19:09, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
To state that there is literally no good reason for a LIST not to have its enumeration at the front is pure eyewash, and I wholly disagree and beg to differ. @YBG: Perhaps a WP:RFC may be a good idea? (I'd wait until Election fever subsides for that, mind you.)--Nevéselbert 19:14, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

To clarify my opinion and the meaning of my chart above, I am assuming that the "move" faction is in favor of moving both columns currently headed "Presidency" to the left hand side. As I recall the major reorg discussion (being too lazy to re-read in its entirety right now), everyone there was a sense that it was good to keep the # and date columns together. In this I agree: the two columns should either be (a) adjacent and in the middle, as now; or (b) they should be adjacent and on the left. Without a convincing argument otherwise, I would oppose moving just the number column. In my chart above, I presume that everyone in the "move" camp agrees with this, but if not, I can add another column to that table. If it is agreed to move both columns, I think it would be good to have a single "President" heading, with an appropriate rewording of the footnote text. I made a similar adjustment to the VP article before my self-revert. Also, it occurs to me that the # and date columns could be combined, thus saving a small amount of horizontal real estate, but I'm not sure whether this would be an improvement or not as I haven't actually tried it. And, as regards Cleveland and the 22/24 issue, at the top of this talk page there is a FAQ on this subject with links to prior discussions. YBG (talk) 20:17, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

While Neve-selbert seems to think otherwise, there is clearly WP:CON to fix the current layout, changing to its enumeration at the front. While there is no harm it seeking in seeking more imput, etc., I also doubt the results will change, and we should still change it now.
If Neve-selbert wishs to "wait until election fever subsides" for further discussion-- that is fine with me also, as long as we don't leave it with enumeration in the middle until then. tahc chat 20:29, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
A list is organized by some logical criteria. For it to be a list is must be organized and laid out on a basis of that criteria. In the lead sentence of basically every president, it begins by saying "so and so was a blah blah who served as Xth President of the United States, etc." George Washington is the 1st president, not the first presidency. That distinction is important because Presidents are denoted by their order of service. They even have nicknames based on their number, Bush 41, 43, etc. What is a list if it has no characteristic feature that denotes the organizing criteria, be it a bullet point, hash mark, number, letter, etc? There was no consensus to make this change and it makes absolutely no sense. If I made a grocery list, would I do this?: But1ter, Mi2lk, Eg3gs, etc. Or would I put the number first? This is a list of Presidents not presidencies, and the fact that the two go together doesn't really matter. We also list elections and terms, which is interesting to show continuity of the office through succession. Give me 1 good reason why the numbers that organize and list the entries of a list should not go first.   Spartan7W §   22:09, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Alright then. It seems there is consensus for the Order of service column reordering. As such, I respect that and have thusly reverted my revert.--Nevéselbert 22:20, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I've un-self-reverted the VP list and will shortly put the revised #45 stuff in the next section YBG (talk) 01:03, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).