Talk:List of presidents of the United States/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

party affiliations

do they refer to the party at the given time? not sure republicans from past can be identified with republicans from the present.. so maybe common colour is misleading? 178.148.11.105 (talk) 11:54, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure what you're saying, but yes, the Republican Party of the United States started in 1854, nominating Abraham Lincoln 6 year later. Hoof Hearted (talk) 17:56, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Religions chart?

It's quite interesting to see all the different denominations of Christianity of the US Presidents. Would it benefit the article if somewhere we could have a chart of presidents by religion, so this information can be seen at a glance without opening their individual articles? Considering the significance of religion in US politics, it seems appropriate. I was, for example, quite surprised to see that Richard Nixon was a Quaker. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 07:57, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Somewhat unnecessary. We have an article on Religious affiliations of Presidents of the United States which both discusses the religious affiliations of Presidents and then lists them. Including in controversial cases, like Abraham Lincoln where the primary sources and people who knew him personally disagreed on whether he was a believing Christian.

As for Nixon, he was not apparently a particularly religious Quaker. The list notes: "Contrary to Quaker custom, Nixon swore the oath of office at both of his inaugurations. He also engaged in military service, contrary to the Quaker doctrine of pacifism." He was actually the second Quaker president, following Herbert Hoover. Dimadick (talk) 17:09, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

C-SPAN links

Links for the C-SPAN series American Presidents: Life Portraits have been assigned to each entry in this list for some time (since at least 2009). However, at some point since the list was last reviewed, C-SPAN has changed their URLs and changed their website(s) such that the URLs as they were now point to the same page, here: http://www.c-span.org/series/?presidents . However, the individual programs (such as this one for George Washington) are still up as videos. I am going to go through and replace the URLs that point to the americanpresidents.org site with URLs for the individual programs for each president. (I will also adjust the title and access date as needed.) Any concerns, let's discuss. KConWiki (talk) 02:01, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Living former Presidents

Please list Ronald Reagan as the most recently serving president to die. Various gubernatorial pages give a list of living governors with a mention the most recent one to die and, if different, the most recently serving office holder to die. Since Reagan served after the most recent president to die, Ford, I think he should be mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.126.81.6 (talk) 17:18, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Correct presidential names in Article

Correct "Bill" Clinton (William Jefferson Clinton) and Barack Obama (Barack Hussein Obama II). Using the common name for these and not for other presidents is incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpkaplan (talk • contribs) 15:16, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

"Bill Clinton" and "Barack Obama" are the correct names we want to use here per WP:COMMONNAME. I don't see a president who is NOT listed using a common name. William Howard Taft (for example) was known by that name, not "Bill Taft". To which presidents are you referring? Hoof Hearted (talk) 20:33, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 April 2016

Correct spelling of "Barrack" to "Barack" Obama. Dizzytired (talk) 04:49, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Done and thanks Cannolis (talk) 05:06, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

List of presidents Independents Color

In the section: "List of presidents", the color for the independents is white, i don't think that's a good choice, is almost unnoticeable, i would suggest grey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Il giovane bello 73 (talk • contribs) 14:57, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

State of Eisenhower

why Kansas? in 1952 he was from New York and 1956 Pennsylvania — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.127.1.203 (talk) 02:57, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

This is the problem with listing states in a table that doesn't provide any additional context. If nobody else objects, I'm going to delete that column at the end of the week. Let the List of Presidents of the United States by home state provide this information with the necessary explanations that go along with it! The state article could actually be improved to make a better distinction between "birth state", "state of residence", and "state of primary affiliation".

In Eisenhower's case, it appears his childhood home was Abilene, Kansas - which he considered his home town and is where he is buried. However he was living in New York during the 1952 election and the wikipedia article there states he is from New York, so I'm questioning which is right, along with the OP. Hoof Hearted (talk) 19:00, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

 Done diffHoof Hearted (talk) 19:07, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree, that column should be deleted. the home states column simply causes too much controversy, and sometimes does not have a clear or definite answer AvRand (talk) 06:18, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

John Quincy Adams was a member of the Federalist Party, not a member of the Democratic-Republican Party.

John Quincy Adams was a member of the Federalist Party, not a member of the Democratic-Republican Party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.67.7.151 (talk) 11:24, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

JQA was a member of several different parties during his lifetime, including both the Democratic-Republican Party and the Federalist party. At the time he ran for president, he was a member of the Democratic-Republican Party. I recommend that you continue this discussion at Talk:United States presidential election, 1824, which would be a more appropriate venue. meamemg (talk) 13:52, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

This list lists the Presidents in the party they were in while they were President, therefore, you don't see Abraham Lincoln as a Whig, or Theodore Roosevelt as a Progressive. AvRand (talk) 06:16, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 July 2016

In the Living Former Preisdents section, can you make a note of the fact that Ronald Reagan was the most recently serving President to die? On lists of state governors, in the living former office holder sections on those pages, they list the most recent serving office holder to die, if said persons was different from the most recent officer holder to die, regardless of time served. Since the Most recent president to die, Gerald Ford, served before Reagan, the same distinction applies here. 2601:241:300:C930:2C2E:C97D:2562:F1D2 (talk) 01:18, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

 Done Drdpw (talk) 06:41, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Full dates of birth and death for each President

My edit removing MDY dates in favour of MY dates of each birth and death of each US president was recently reverted by Drdpw for removing "good information" and such changes being "unnecessary". I beg to differ. The full dates of birth/death are really unnecessary for the List. If someone wants to know the exact date of birth of George H. W. Bush for example? They would click on his link on the list. I strongly believe that the full dates of birth and dates of death on this article should at least be shortened from e.g. February 6, 1911 – June 5, 2004 to February 1911 – June 2004, MonthYear rather than MonthDayYear. It would make the article much cleaner and more compact, without delving into much detail and without removing substantial information.--Neve–selbert 11:05, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the article as much cleaner or more compact without the day of the month. At least as it renders in my browser, there is no difference in the length of the list with the inclusion or exclusion of the date; the size of the picture used is what determines the length of the entry. From a visual perspective, it does not, to me, look more cluttered. meamemg (talk) 13:54, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

It looks far too superfluous, in my opinion. Take a look at Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom or List of Presidents of France for example. Only the years of Birth–Death are listed. I am trying to meet the consensus halfway here and keep the months but remove the day. Again, if people are so desperate to know when Bush or Barack Obama were born they would click onto their article, not hard at all. The question may very well be: how exactly does including the day of birth and death for each President make the article any more clean or concise? Honestly, I think there would be little harm done if we just simply removed the day and kept the months in place. This article is meant to list each US president, not precisely the exact DOB/DOD for each and every one (we already have three articles for that, anyway, that are linked below in the article).--Neve–selbert 14:36, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that including day makes it more clean or concise. I just said that taking it out doesn't make it more clean or concise. And if they look the same, I'd prefer the one that has more information. That said, I see the arguments for just years. To me, that does look cleaner. Just month seems like the worst of both cases, it provides less information, and does not look any cleaner. meamemg (talk) 15:22, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Neve-selbert, for sharing your rationale for the edit that I reverted, and I understand what you're saying. however, I'm still not seeing that the article would be made much cleaner or more compact by only removing the day of the month. IMO, having only M/Y renders the column incomplete and would beg the question, "where's the days"? (BTW, having just the Y wouldn't be an issue for me.) Drdpw (talk) 22:43, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I have just now shortened both the dates of birth and death of each president from MonthDayYear to just Year. It does look a lot cleaner and compact this way, in my opinion.--Neve–selbert 21:32, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Refined format

I have refined (trimmed & simplified) the format of the list of presidents. The two main changes I made were: removed the vice president column (plus the associated party color coding column), and removed the previous office column. I removed the VP column because there's a separate list article of VPs, and because this is a list of PsOTUS, not Ps&VPsOTUS. I removed the previous office column because there are other articles that list those, and in several cases, the information seems trivial or only loosely germane. I hope I made the list more user friendly. Drdpw (talk) 13:31, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Additionally, I have removed theindividual former presidents' photos from the living presidents section. Having these photos right below the other photos is (even though different) redundant. I also restored group image to standard thumbnail format. Drdpw (talk) 20:13, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

I've undone those 'former Presidents' changes, so that the article continues to resemble the List of Vice Presidents of the United States article. GoodDay (talk) 13:07, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Also, recommend that you restore the Veeps column, as the Prez column is used at the aforementioned List of Veeps article. GoodDay (talk) 13:09, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

@Drdpw: These edits are very detrimental to the effectiveness of this list. There are reasons for its prior design.

·First of all, the party colors are separated from the text and link of said party for accessibility reasons. Color-on-text is horrible for accessibility and people of poor eyesight (that is a semi-redundant statement I do realize).

·Second, this list shows each term of the office of the presidency; while there may have only been 44 presidencies and 43 men to hold that office, there have been 57 four-year terms of the office of the presidency, each punctuated and defined by an election. This list illustrates each term of the presidency, illustrating visually the presidents (and vice presidents) who served in those terms. For example, it shows that both Nixon and Ford occupied the 47th four-year term of the presidency, and that George Clinton served as VP for both the 5th and 6th terms of the same.

·The term of office column is oriented vertically to illustrate the continuity of the presidents, demonstrating there is never a vacancy in that office and, like a timeline, shows dates in an effective flow of information.

·The lifespan of the president is included below the name to save space, reduce complexity, and its a logical placement.

·The previous office column is included because: it is a logical place, it shows where they came from prior to, and especially in the case of VPs, better shows when they ascended to that office.

·The column of Vice Presidents is included, again for obvious reasons, to show with whom the President served, as except for Washington-Adams and Adams-Jefferson, Presidents had a say in their #2.

·President's name is bold and enlarged not only for accessibility, but for ease of recognition amidst the table.

In addition to these reasons for the design of this table, you obviously gave little thought to these or other considerations. You did not align text to the center, you ignored accessibility concerns, this table is not a clean design, and this previous style (i.e. prior to you) is one slowly being implemented throughout lists Presidents, Vice Presidents, Speakers, Governors, Congressmen, etc. of the United States. Your edit (effective reversion) of improvements I have made, and refinements of other editors since November of last year is nothing short of WP:BOLD, and by the protocol of WP:BRD, if you make a bold edit which is shortly reverted, discussion ensues. Wikipedia exists to serve its readers, and while information may be made slightly redundant, that's okay; efficient organization in this, the master list of Presidents for Wikipedia, can be a reason to revise or remove other pages made excessively redundant. The purpose of a list and a table for that purpose are to efficiently organize large amounts of information in a uniform, logical manner. It should also be visually appealing, it should effectively illustrate the timeline of the office (as a single occupant has the effect of creating a timeline in a list), it should simplify organization, and it should address accessibility concerns. These are the reasons why the massive overhaul was made, because this and other list tables were deficient in these areas.   Spartan7W §   14:42, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Suggested improvements

I think the VP party color column has a couple of problems

1. It is not labeled
2. It is not accessible
3. Its location is not consistent with the location of the POTUS party column

After thinking about this for a while, I came up with the following suggestions for reorganizing the columns:

• Header (colspan=3): President (or "Presidency"?)
  • col 1: number
  • col 2: portrait
  • col 3: name, born/died/age/footnotes
• Header (colspan=2): Party
  • col 4: party color
  • col 5: party name
• Header (colspan=2): Term & election
  • col 6: from/to dates
  • col 7: term # & election year
• Header (colspan=1): Previous office
  • col 8: name of office, dates
• Header (colspan=2): Vice President & Party
  • col 9: name (with from/to dates when needed)
  • col 10: party color

strikeout indicates parts of this proposal I've withdrawn following Spartan7W's helpful comments below. YBG (talk) 23:46, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

The advantages and disadvantages of this include

+ party color is immediately right of both the President's name and the VP's

+ 'term of office' and term number are adjacent

– but there may be difficulties in keeping other similar tables organized consistently

Other things I think would be helpful

• Move the footnote re numbering (the 22/24 thing) from "term" to "presidency" since it relates to the Presidency number, not the term number
• For accessibility reasons, include party {{abbrev}} in the VP party color column. The current arrangement violates the accessibility principle color should never be the only method of communicating information. The problem of text visibility can be resolved by carefully selecting the text color, but IMO, this should be done even without using alternate text colors.
• Remove the parens from the election years. I'm not sure what they add
• Change GW's election year from 1789 to 1788. Yea, the election period spanned the New Year, but it started in 1788, so why not make it consistent with the others?

Comments? YBG (talk) 20:38, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

For VP party, in those cases (under Washington, Adams, and Lincoln) where the VP differed from the President, we could note that by placing a letter after the name: John Adams (F), like they do on TV. That way we keep out the clutter of labeling each individual VP's party, and add a secondary footnote to each to describe why said VP's party differed.

·For the parenthesis, because a term begins the year after the election (save for 1789), the parenthesis subtly hint that that election preceded and defined that term of the office, rather than started it.   Spartan7W §   22:51, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

That is a brilliant way of resolving the VP color issue! Thanks! YBG (talk) 23:10, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I still think some of the other reorganization would be helpful -- to move the term and term number together, and to move the party color and party together. I have marked up the above table accordingly. YBG (talk) 23:46, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Changed the “Term” column to “Election” because the dates in the column refer specifically with the presidential election rather than to the four year term of a president.
Changed the “Term of office” to “Presidency” because dates in the column refer to each president’s presidency, which may (and many times have) encompass more than one term.
Changed the 1st presidential election year to “1788-89” as “1789” was inaccurate (as would “1788” alone). Unsure the election years need to be in parentheses, but left them so.
Delinked the table headings “President” and “Vice President”, as the terms are linked to earlier in the article.
Also fine-tuned the note regarding George Washington’s inauguration & first term length, more informative. Drdpw (talk) 01:18, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, those are good changes.

As discussed above, I've removed the VP party color column. But instead of just using a parenthesized abbreviation like (F), I've used a color legend and the full party name. There seemed to be plenty of room. I'm not sure about how I formatted the D/NU for Andrew Johnson, so if anyone thinks they can improve it, please do!

I would still like to move the POTUS party color column to be adjacent to the party column. Any objections? YBG (talk) 04:11, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Concur w/your idea of moving the POTUS party color column to the other side of the presidency column and adjacent to the party column.

List looks fine w/o the VP party color column. However, the VP party boxes looked a bit awkward, given that only 3 of 47 VPs needed them; so I've removed them and replaced them with notes to show that these particular VPs were each of a different political party than the POTUS they served under.

I merged the separate notes for "Died in office", "Death by natural causes", and "Assassinated" into one - "Died in office" as this seems simpler and remains accurate.

I cut the notations for presidents who "Sought an election for a full term, but were unsuccessful" and who "Later sought election or re-election to a non-consecutive term" because these facts, while interesting, are of secondary importance (even trivial perhaps). Drdpw (talk) 08:26, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I liked the VP party color boxes because they stood out and you could easily find the exceptions to the rule. But if you want to remove them, that's fine, but it would be good to include a parenthesized party abbreviation before the footnote.

I'd go a different direction with some of the footnotes. I'd completely eliminate some of the footnotes and put small text stating "died in office", "assassinated" or "resigned" for all of the cases where a term of office (POTUS or VP) ends early. Don't need one VP promoted to POTUS as it is obvious in context.

I liked the notes about those who unsuccessfully sought to extend their presidency, I can live without it. I think it would be useful information in a column about after their Presidency -- so you could see that JQA served in the House after his Presidency and TR tried but failed to get elected a different Party banner. But I'd stop well short of including info about other non-official duties.

YBG (talk) 00:14, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Since realigning the VP column the other evening, I have, removed unnecessary "br/" mark-ups; included (restored) full VP service dates where they differed from the presidential dates of service (including dates for when the office of the VP was vacant); and moved links from the numbers column that were all but hidden thanks to the forced "#000" text color and thus pretty useless to the "see also" section, and so improved their visibility and usefulness. I also contemplated following through on YBG's comment above about completely eliminating some of the footnotes and putting small text stating "died in office", "assassinated" or "resigned" for all of the cases where a term of office (POTUS or VP) ends early, but did not. I do like that idea. Drdpw (talk) 03:13, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

The <br/> mark-ups are not unnecessary at all. They should be returned, there was no consensus to remove them whatsoever. The full dates for the Vice Presidents are also quite superflous. What exactly is wrong with noting that VP Rockefeller "(Began: December 19, 1974)". Most readers would understand that he ended his term on the same day Ford ended his. Why you are so intent on complicating and cluttering the table is quite simply beyond me.--Neve–selbert 03:54, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

arbitrary break in suggested improvements

Spartan7W, YBG: As things are deteriorating into an edit war between myself & Neve-selbert, I am disengaging and would ask you both to intervene and help me, and perhaps Neve-selbert also, to see our dueling edits (attempts to enhance this list) with fresh eyes. Thanks. Drdpw (talk) 04:15, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I am away from the machine I edit on. I will review and figure things out when I return Wednesday. Mistakes were made removing the party coloration from VPs, and requires going back to previous versions to re-do this fix.   Spartan7W §   04:23, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I did the other day when I addressed the issue GoodDay raised about the alignment of George Clinton. I went back to the last version w/the color column for VPs and erased the color by using "colspan=2" for the entire list (theremay have been a better way, but I'm no wikimarkup wiz, and that seemed simplist to me). Drdpw (talk) 04:37, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

@Spartan7W: For the Vice Presidents, I did rework the dates for when each left office, noting whether or not they had died, resigned, etc. Drdpw was against the changes without sound reason, so I just wondered whether or not you think these changes were suitably cleaner and more compact and consistent with the (Lived: 81 years) in the President column:

Republican
President			Presidency	Party		Election	Previous service	Vice President
37		Richard Nixon 1913–1994 (Lived: 81 years)	January 20, 1969 – August 9, 1974		Republican	46 (1968)	36th Vice President of the United States (1953–61)	Spiro Agnew (Resigned: October 10, 1973)
						47 (1972)
								Office vacant
								Gerald Ford (Began: December 6, 1973)
38		Gerald Ford 1913–2006 (Lived: 93 years)	August 9, 1974 – January 20, 1977		Republican		40th Vice President of the United States	Office vacant
								Nelson Rockefeller (Began: December 19, 1974)

Instead of the rather clunky December 19, 1974 – January 20, 1977 I replaced it with the simpler and rather more straightforward (Began: December 19, 1974) instead. Most readers would know already that Rockefeller's term in office ended when Carter came to power alongside Mondale, hence why Mondale is situated solely beside 39's column and not row-spanning from #38.--Neve–selbert 19:56, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

The long-standing (past 500+ edits over 3+ years) consensus dating format for VPs who did not serve the same term length as the POTUS they served under has been Month Day, Year – Month Day, Year, which matches the dating format for each individual presidency. I'm not seeing the article as much cleaner or more compact formatting the VP column as Neve-selbert proposes. Nor am I seeing a "clunky" problem with the way the dates are presently formatted. For these reasons I prefer the more informative status quo over the truncating change suggested. One final note on this, while Neve-selbert's proposal may make the column consistent with the format of the President column, that's an "apples to oranges" comparison. The "apples to apples" comparison is with the Presidency column, and the VP column has long been consistent with the Presidency column. Drdpw (talk) 21:44, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I would note that in the Presidency column Drdpw refers to there is a line break before & after the en dash, whereas in the Vice President column there is no break, hence a slight inconsistency.--Neve–selbert 22:00, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: My comment below and Drdpw's response, are moved here instead of the previous section where I mistakenly put my comment. YBG (talk) 00:30, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

For what its worth, I prefer the minimalist form that only includes VP begin/end dates when they differ from that of the POTUS. But I haven't thought through how that style decision might impact what we'd like to do with the VP list. YBG (talk) 23:37, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I concur; the column is presently formatted that way. Drdpw (talk) 00:19, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

What I actually meant was that I preferred the form that only included the date(s) that are different. I especially like the fact that 'resigned' or 'died' can eliminate the need for a footnote. However, I am fine with the current state of the article, which lists both begin and end dates when either one differs from the POTUS dates. But I would like to see a brief 'died' or 'resigned' to be inserted as appropriate. YBG (talk) 00:34, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

That would work, and cut down on the number of notes in the process. Drdpw (talk) 00:43, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I have changed "died in office" and "resigned from office" to in-cell notes (rather than efn-notes). When doing tis, I linked the "died in office" note for the 4 assassinated presidents to their respective assassination articles. Drdpw (talk) 23:50, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, that is much better. But I think the nearly-full-width hr is a bit confusing - it looks too much like a new cell. In the VP column, the note could be removed by changing the "Office vacant" comments to "Vacant (by death/resignation/ascension)". This would have the added advantage of eliminating the white space above and below Madison's pic. (Poor man! Couldn't seem to find a VP would could go the distance.) Of course, this technique doesn't work in the POTUS column, but as I say, the problem isn't as bad there. But even there, I'd prefer a half-width hr, though I'm not sure how to do that. Or maybe eliminate the hr and just put the note in parens. YBG (talk) 06:26, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Another comment. Now that the party color is adjacent to the party name, I'm not sure there is any need for the party color legend in the header - unless we want to add a count like in the VP list, though I don't really care for that. YBG (talk) 06:26, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Tried changing the "Office vacant" comments to "Vacant (by death/resignation/ascension)". It didn't eliminate the white space around JM's pic. I think that only a differently cropped image will accomplish that. I did change several Office Vacant dates to "(Balance of term)", in an effort to break-up the wall of dates in that column. ADDENDUM, another possibility would be to change the wording for pre-XXV Amendment vacancies to, (Office vacant balance of term).
RE the party color legend in the header, having it there and with links to parties means that the wikilinks up&down the Party column can be removed. Actually, there's a problem with WP:OVERLINK & WP:SEAOFBLUE throughout the table. Drdpw (talk) 20:13, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Keep in mind that MOS:DUPLINK specifically mentions repeating links in a table when it would be helpful to the reader. Our readers may well be in the middle of this table and start to wonder What's a Whig or What's the difference between the Democratic and Democratic-Republican parties or between the Republican and National Republican parties. Such readers are ill-served by having to navigate to the top of a huge table. YBG (talk) 00:11, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Question

Question, why are the presidents' dates in office formatted as they are?

January 20, 2017 – January 20, 2021

rather than

January 20, 2017 – January 20, 2021

Drdpw (talk) 15:53, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Convention, it seems. See List of British monarchs.--Neve–selbert 02:32, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Recent photos of living former presidents

Also, for former presidents, I see no injury done by including recent photographs of them. Each has aged considerably since their portrait; Carter is 35 years older, Bush 41 is 23 years older, and Clinton and Bush 43 are each in their 70s now (or practically) and are considerably older in appearance. Showing what each looks like in the last few years is a nice added bonus. Including their name is logical, especially for accessibility, and they few characters it takes to list their term of office and age does not harm.   Spartan7W §   22:56, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree. I support re-adding recent photos of the living former presidents. I suggest putting the photos and brief bio data in a table, 1st row the photos, 2nd row the data. No need for a wikitable. YBG (talk) 23:10, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I would go so far as to say that the article is much better with the recent photographs than it is without. I think we should reach a consensus here. YBG (talk) 23:20, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I think the article is fine w/o the aged former presidents' pictures. So what if they're more recent then the ones in the main list, the former presidents listing is just a few lines below, making separate photos redundant. While there's "no injury" in having the recent photos included, w/a group picture right there we can tell that they've aged since leaving office (lest there be any doubt that they had). The images are, quite simply, extraneous. Drdpw (talk) 23:51, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

I absolutely concur with Drdpw. Having first dismissed his arguments myself, I soon reconsidered and indeed, including four separate images for each and every living former president that already has an image in the above table is rather a superfluous concept—a paragraph/table would give away the information about the living former POTUS just as well as any gallery could. No injury done perhaps otherwise. But, perhaps the reverse could be asked: is there injury done by not including the gallery? I would seriously doubt that. The former US presidents have aged indeed, but none have attempted any sort of surgical face reshaping; my point is, most can still identify them. By all means, decorate the table if you like or even give it an aesthetic redesign of some sorts. I urge you to reconsider returning the gallery. Besides, when President Obama leaves office next year the images will no longer be consistent, given that Obama is unlikely to age considerably just days after leaving office and the fact that we will have to wait for Spartan himself to take a .tif image of the soon-to-be former president with the exact same height-width dimensions to match the others.--Neve–selbert 13:15, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I still like seeing recent pictures of the living former presidents. As an alternative, the pic from GWB's library dedication could be cropped and enlarged so you could actually see the faces. YBG (talk) 23:58, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

All I ask for is consistency, here & at List of Vice Presidents of the United States. -- GoodDay (talk) 09:35, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Agree; the VP page will/does need major updating so that it remains consistent with this page. Drdpw (talk) 20:48, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

George Clinton

Anyone know how to correct Clinton's position in the article? his second term as Veep, should be under Pres Madison. GoodDay (talk) 21:34, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: The "row span" problem extends to the placement of John Calhoun and the vacancy created when he resigned in 12/1832. Drdpw (talk) 21:43, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

@GoodDay: I found when the error entered the page - The August 8, 2016 edit in which the VP party color column was removed. I will work on realigning the VP column this evening or tomorrow (Saturday). Drdpw (talk) 22:41, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

I have realigned the VP column. When doing so, I ended up separating the terms that G. Clinton & J. Calhoun served under separate presidents, thus showing that they served a full term and then, after an election, served a partial term under a different president. While working on this, I also added the dates of office for all VPs where they were missing, plus a note about the delayed start of J. Adams' 1st term. Drdpw (talk) 05:11, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Calidum ¤ 05:22, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! I believe I was probably the one that introduced the error. Thanks for noticing and thanks for fixing! This is what collaboration is all about! YBG (talk) 23:35, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

List of VPs article table

Several comments have been made on this page about the desire for formatting consistency between the List of Presidents of the United States table and one at List of Vice Presidents of the United States. I’ve been working refining the VP table so that the formatting is similar, and would appreciate input before I post it. Please, take a look at it in my sandbox, and leave any comments about it at the List of Vice Presidents of the United States talk page. Thanks. Drdpw (talk) 23:48, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I'd appreciate some more input on the VP list reformatting proposal before I go forward with its implementation. Please, take a look and then share your observations or suggestions. Thanks. Drdpw (talk) 22:35, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

@Drdpw: Very good, so far. If you need a hand with the reformatting, I wouldn't hesitate.--Neve–selbert 10:41, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

The VP article reformatting has been completed. I have reordered the columns in this article to match the VP article. There may be other reformatting that needs to be done to make the articles match. YBG (talk) 03:04, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 September 2016

The fact that Clinton was impeached from office is not noted; however, the fact that Nixon resigned from office was included. Are you trying to distort history? 172.249.82.36 (talk) 17:55, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

You are correct, the fact that B. Clinton was impeached is not noted, and neither is the fact that A Johnson was impeached as well. The reason neither is noted is that neither impeachment resulted in removal from office. Had either been removed from office by the U.S. Senate, their term would have ended, and that would be noted. No one is trying to distort history here, as impeachment does not end a president's term, and is thus not germane. Hope this explanation helps. For more details on the topic, see Impeachment in the United States. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 18:16, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Presidents that did not win a majority of the states

The article lists the 4 presidents that won the election but lost the popular vote. For completeness and to prevent bias, it should also list the 3 presidents (Carter, Kennedy and JQ Adams) that won the election but did not carry a majority of the states. The two ties (Garfield and Taylor) could also be noted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.214.115.237 (talk) 18:17, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Since the number of states won has no bearing on being elected, I don't see how this improves the completeness or removes any bias of the article. I also don't think we need to include every little election nuance - which sounds more like WP:TRIVIA. Popular vote is at least indirectly related to winning the election, and a listed president who lost the popular vote may require explanation for those not familiar with the Electoral College. Hoof Hearted (talk) 19:50, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

The number of states has just as much bearing as does the popular vote (that is not really much), as the electoral votes are a combination of the number of senators (state based) and congressmen (population based). I see now that this entire section has been eliminated, and that makes sense, as both of these are just trivia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.214.115.237 (talk) 16:27, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

White House photo

In all these years, I had not seen (or known about) this article before. The table is very well done; one of the best I've seen. However, the lead section is a different story, and one of the main things is the image of the White House. What would be a good reason to have it in this article? We all know that the president lives in the White House, and we all know what it looks like. Per MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE, a lead image "must be significant and relevant in the topic's context", not just related. An image is not required for a lead, and this one certainly doesn't need two. And if an image needs such a long caption, that means that it shouldn't be a lead image, because the lead image needs little-to-no captioning (WP:Manual of Style/Captions#Infoboxes and leading images). Also, this lead is too long as it is. A lead should be no longer than four paragraphs (WP:LEAD), and this is a list article, so there shouldn't be much prose. The lead should just be long enough to adequately explain the following list. And the image just makes the section even longer. —Musdan77 (talk) 18:27, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

I would recommend having a portrait of President Obama replacing the image of the White House, similar to the situation at List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom with Prime Minister May. I agree that the White House image should be moved elsewhere, yes.--Nevé–selbert 20:01, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your input Musdan77. I concur with your observation about the White House image; that and the seal have always seemed a bit out of place tome as well. I have just replaced both images with the Politics of the United States of America series sidebar. Such sidebars are widely used (more so then images) in list articles. I have also trimmed (rearranged text in) the introduction, as you suggested, though probably not to the degree you might have envisioned. So, to you, and to others I ask, "what else should be trimmed?" and "what should not have been trimmed?" Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 20:23, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Drdpw. I don't know about anyone else, but the changes you made to the lead look fine to me. Sure, I think more could be trimmed, but it's better than it was. —Musdan77 (talk) 04:47, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Presidentiad

Presidentiad, which redirects to this page, is a term used by Walt Whitman to refer to Lincoln's 1861-65 term in the poem Year of Meteors, 1859-60, apparently a reference to the 1860 Great Meteor. Maybe we could use this term in the column header instead of "election". YBG (talk) 08:19, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Technically, presidentiad could be used in place of presidency (see Games of the XXXI Olympiad). That said, I'm not in favor of using it. The word was nothing more then a poetic term coined by Whitman, and is rarely used, a google search shows, by anyone, except when discussing that particular Whitman work. The vast majority of readers would question (some with "colorful metaphors" perhaps) why we're using this word. Drdpw (talk) 09:25, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Yea, I agree. But I found the word interesting enough that I felt compelled to use it someplace. Better on TP than in an article. YBG (talk) 19:39, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Democratic party color

Why this article shows ligth blue color for democrats while the main article (of democratic party) shows dark blue? I think we should replace ligth blue with dark blue, as it was before.--Elelch (talk) 21:41, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Elelch, there has been some debate about what color to use for the U.S. Democratic Party on this page and it has changed a couple times over the past year or so. The current Democratic Party meta color ( ) is used on the List of Vice Presidents of the United States, List of Presidents pro tempore of the United States Senate, and List of Speakers of the United States House of Representatives pages, plus those of most U.S. State Governors, except where a few have been bold and changed the color to ( ).

On the VP, PPt, & Speaker list pages I made the decision to go with the Democratic Party meta color when I recently made some formatting changes. When I did, I put this note on the respective talk page:

In the "party color" column I chose to use the current Democratic Party meta color ( ) rather than the color currently used in the "party color" column for presidents on the presidents list page ( ). I did so because   is the status quo meta color. There is currently a discussion at Template talk:Democratic Party (United States)/meta/color#Rfc: #3333FF or #34AAE0 on which color should be used as the meta color for the U.S. Democratic Party. Please join that discussion if you wish to express your view on this topic.

I've refrained from making the change back to the meta color on this list page, out of respect for those promoting the new DNC shade of blue; but the question remains, "why this page is different?" In the final anaylsis, this page shouldn't be, change the so I'll change it back one more time, and, because the color issue goes beyond this page, I urge the watchers of this and other similar pages, to please join the discussion concerning which color should be used as the meta color for the U.S. Democratic Party at Template talk:Democratic Party (United States)/meta/color#Rfc: #3333FF or #34AAE0 if you wish to express your view on this topic. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 23:24, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

UPDATE: I just visited the discussion over on the meta color template talk page, and discovered that the discussion has ended, and that the clear consensus is for the color to remain as #3333FF, the most common argument being that we're using colors to make our pages easier to read, not necessarily to reflect the parties' official colors. So, I've gone ahead and changed the color on this list for Democrats back to #3333FF. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 23:56, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Agree. The current meta color ( ) is also the most used in the media to identify democratic party, so people is widely accustomed to it.--Elelch (talk) 17:13, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

1788-89

Question: In the 'Election' column, how should the dates of the first Presidential election be written?

1. 1788–1789
2. 1788–89
3. 1788
4. 1789

Arguments could be made for each of these, but I tend to prefer 1 or 2 because 3 and 4 don't really tell the full story. But which should we use, 1 or 2? Looking at MOS:DATERANGE, it says that "the range's end year is usually given in full", but then it goes on to add:

The ending year in a range may be abbreviated to two digits (1881–82, but never 1881–882 or 1881–2) in the case of two consecutive years, or in infoboxes and tables where space is at a premium. (Use a single format consistently in any given table column, both for aesthetic reasons and so that data sorts properly.)

This says that we may use the "1788–89" in either of two situations (a) when the two years are consecutive or (b) in infoboxes or tables. The MOS does not require us to use "1788–89", but allows us to choose between "1788–1789" and "1788–89" if either of these conditions applies. In this case, both conditions apply and so we certainly are allowed to use either format. And given this choice, I prefer "1788–89" to conserve space. If we use "1788–1789", that forces the column to be wider. It isn't a lot wider, but it is wider, and every little bit helps in a wide table such as this one. YBG (talk) 05:26, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

#3 or 4 would be something to consider. A note can be added, explaining how the election ended the previous/following year.--Nevé–selbert 19:27, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I implemented option #2 (1788-89). -- GoodDay (talk) 19:44, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

GoodDay, granted this is a small issue, and either XXXX–XXXY or XXXX–XY works for me, I wish you hadn't circumvented the discussion YBG started by implementing option #2. That said, the use of 1788–89 is fine by me. Drdpw (talk) 20:38, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Ya may change it to 1788 or whichever ya'll prefer. No biggy with me :) GoodDay (talk) 20:51, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

We should aim to be consistent here. If we go about #2, we should aim to go about implementing this format with the entire table. It just looks inconsistent otherwise.--Nevé–selbert 19:53, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

For consecutive years, perhaps (1862–63), but not for non-consecutive years (1862–1867). Drdpw (talk) 20:38, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I think consistency within a column is the most important thing here, and this is the only year range in this column. I agree with Drdwp that we should only use yyyy-yy for consecutive years. Although there are a few consecutive years in other columns, for the most part they are 4- or 8-year ranges, and I think it is better to be consistent within those columns. YBG (talk) 23:58, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Lincoln/Johnson party color

The second term of Abraham Lincoln, and the only term of Andrew Johnson, should be colored separately to denote that they were in the National Union Party at that time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sleyece (talk • contribs) 18:13, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Done Drdpw (talk) 02:29, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Templates revised with columns reordered

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.

This is a record of the final consensus format reached for listing the president-elect in this list and the vice-president elect in that list

---

Here they are: YBG (talk) 01:11, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

POTUS with columns moved

If Clinton should be elected ... 43 January 20, 2001 – January 20, 2009 George W. Bush Born 1946 (78 years old) 46th Governor of Texas (1995–2000) Republican 54 (2000) Dick Cheney 55 (2004) 44 January 20, 2009 – Incumbent Barack Obama Born 1961 (63 years old) U.S. Senator (Class 3) from Illinois (2005–2008) Democratic 56 (2008) Joe Biden 57 (2012) Incoming presidency Further information: Presidential transition of Hillary Clinton and Inauguration of Hillary Clinton President-elect Previous service Presidency Party Election Vice president-elect 45 Beginning January 20, 2017 (−2,862 days from now) Hillary Clinton Born 1947 (77 years old) 67th United States Secretary of State (2009–2013) Democratic 58 (2016) Tim Kaine If Trump should be elected ... 43 January 20, 2001 – January 20, 2009 George W. Bush Born 1946 (78 years old) 46th Governor of Texas (1995–2000) Republican 54 (2000) Dick Cheney 55 (2004) 44 January 20, 2009 – Incumbent Barack Obama Born 1961 (63 years old) U.S. Senator (Class 3) from Illinois (2005–2008) Democratic 56 (2008) Joe Biden 57 (2012) Incoming presidency Further information: Presidential transition of Donald Trump and Inauguration of Donald Trump Presidency President-elect Previous service Party Election Vice president-elect 45 Beginning January 20, 2017 (−2,862 days from now) Donald Trump Born 1946 (78 years old) Chairman of The Trump Organization (1971–2016) (no prior elected office) Republican 58 (2016) Mike Pence References

VP with columns moved

If Clinton/Kaine should be elected ... Vice-Presidency Vice President Previous service Party Election President 46 January 20, 2001 – January 20, 2009 Dick Cheney Born 1941 (83 years old) 17th U.S. Secretary of Defense Republican 54 (2000) George W. Bush 55 (2004) 47 January 20, 2009 – Incumbent Joe Biden Born 1942 (82 years old) U.S. Senator from Delaware Democratic 56 (2008) Barack Obama 57 (2012) Incoming vice-president Further information: Presidential transition of Hillary Clinton and Inauguration of Hillary Clinton Vice-Presidency Vice president-elect Previous service Party Election President-elect 48 Beginning January 20, 2017 (−2,862 days from now) Tim Kaine Born 1958 (66 years old) U.S. Senator from Virginia (2013–present) Democratic 58 (2016) Hillary Clinton If Trump/Pence should be elected ... Vice-Presidency Vice President Previous service Party Election President 46 January 20, 2001 – January 20, 2009 Dick Cheney Born 1941 (83 years old) 17th U.S. Secretary of Defense Republican 54 (2000) George W. Bush 55 (2004) 47 January 20, 2009 – Incumbent Joe Biden Born 1942 (82 years old) U.S. Senator from Delaware Democratic 56 (2008) Barack Obama 57 (2012) Incoming vice-president Further information: Presidential transition of Donald Trump and Inauguration of Donald Trump Vice-Presidency Vice president-elect Previous service Party Election President-elect 48 Beginning January 20, 2017 (−2,862 days from now) Mike Pence Born 1959 (65 years old) 50th Governor of Indiana (2013–present) Republican 58 (2016) Donald Trump References

Further discussion

Just in case any is needed ... YBG (talk) 01:13, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Ya may as well delete the Clinton & Kaine examples ;) GoodDay (talk) 22:32, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Let's just let it roll off into the archive. Best keep it as part of the permanent record of the discussion. YBG (talk) 23:37, 9 November 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.

Post-election discussion

Inserting a new section here so that the previous sections can be preserved intact. YBG (talk) 23:40, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm pretty devastated at the result, currently between #3 and #4 on the five stages of grief. I should have seen this coming. I prepared the draft for Clinton and I only made one for Trump as a formality. I've made a few extra tweaks to the article; revert if necessary. (@YBG: I saw your attempt to redesign the Living Presidents of the United States table at your sandbox and I think you've done a terrific job. I hope you implement the redesign on the article itself soon :) )--Nevé–selbert 11:22, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

@Drdpw, GoodDay, JFG, and YBG: I know this is kinda off-topic with regard to improving the article (we can collapse this minor discussion later), but I just wanted to know your feelings about the result on Thursday, if I may. What was your reaction? I'm still pretty stunned, TBH.--Nevé–selbert 22:14, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Remember, we can't use article talkpages for general conversation. We can only use them for ways to improve the article-in-question :) GoodDay (talk) 22:17, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

I understand. I was going to {{hat}} our reactions though.--Nevé–selbert 22:24, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, off-topic, but let's take a break from the rules once in a WP lifetime… I for one wasn't surprised by the election result. Seen from far away, Trump had a huge popular following and the Clinton camp took her victory for granted. The more Trump was attacked, the stronger his supporters' resolve. Same thing happened in the primaries actually. A Trump-Sanders duel might have been more balanced, but Sanders himself said "who cares now?" Don't worry Neve-selbert, the world will keep spinning and the US will be as great as ever. — JFG ^talk 23:10, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

@Neve-selbert: Remember this correction? You were convinced indeed… — JFG ^talk 23:19, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

@Neve-selbert: Thank you for reminding me of my sandbox effort. That reminded me to go back and add a duration column to it. However, eliminating the ending event removes some of the context when the table is sorted. I haven't decided what to think about that, so I've delayed moving it to main space. Your encouragement is much appreciated and comments (by you or others) are more than welcome, on my talk page or at the article's talk page as you wish.

Regarding building both templates ahead of time, I believe this was very important, and not just to guard against potential embarrassment. Some of the things we wrestled with would not have arisen if we'd only prepared one template -- or worse yet, used placeholders instead of the actual candidates. But even more that this, I believe it is important for WP to be welcoming even to minorities as small as 8 out of 531 or 13 out of 538. But from my observations of talk page comments, userboxes and other activity, it seems a number of WP editors (or at least the ones who make comments in places I observe) find themselves agreeing with you. I see very little evidence of WP editors on the other side of things. What does that say about the millions of Americans who voted for Trump?

• Are they disproportionately underrepresented on WP? (if so, should we start an outreach effort?)
• Do they only frequent places I don't? (If so, does this say something re my WP habits? And why would they avoid this page?)
• Are they active in the WP places I observe but choose not to identify themselves? (If so, why?)

(P.S., the easter egg links above are worth visiting.) YBG (talk) 23:35, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Stay calm, remain vigilant, and above all, be not afraid. Drdpw (talk) 23:42, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Another tweak

What about combining the first two columns?

Current: 2 March 4, 1797 – March 4, 1801

YBG#1 #2 March 4, 1797 – March 4, 1801

YBG#2 #2 March 4, 1797 – March 4, 1801

Proposal by Drdpw 2 March 4, 1797 – March 4, 1801

My motivation is primarily to save the small bit of horizontal real estate. I've presented two ways of combining the columns, but I'm sure there are other alternatives also. YBG (talk) 05:49, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

@YBG: Great idea! Your Proposal 2 looks cleanest to me. — JFG ^talk 11:22, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

How about moving the dates only, titling the column "In office", and leaving the numbers column under the title "Presidents". Drdpw (talk) 11:48, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

@Drdpw: Have I captured your intent above correctly? If so, it is an interesting idea, but it doesn't do anything about my prime motivation (horizontal real estate). It also separates the number from the date, which I had felt strongly about, but I could still grow on me. Note that I have not included the headers in my chart above because I thought the best way forward would be to decide on the format of the body before deciding on the format of the headers. Nevertheless, I note that your proposal eliminates the the term 'presidency', which I think is a good thing. YBG (talk) 17:47, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

I prefer the status quo, but I wouldn't mind if the proposal "YBG#2" is implemented.--Nevé–selbert 23:41, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

@YBG, JFG, and Drdpw: What do you think of this tweak? We could add the years and days each President served also.--Nevé–selbert 23:45, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Proposal by Neve-selbert

2nd Presidency March 4, 1797 – March 4, 1801 (Served: 4 years)

I prefer the status quo over these tweaks. YBG-1&2 & NS-1 all put too much into one cell. I know YBG's objective is to save a bit of page-width, but the only way to accomplish that would be to cut a column (such as the election year one) or, slightly reduce the size of images + remove the Big parameter around the names + remove the forced width of columns. However, if there's a desire to move things around again, then I'd suggest restoring the table's leftward columns to the way they were a few months ago (see here), with the exception of using the header "In office" rather than "Presidency", which has proved problematic for some reason. Drdpw (talk) 01:36, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Age assuming office

I think this would be an interesting addition. How old was the individual when they taken office. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 19:27, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

See FAQ #6 and List of presidents of the United States by age. Hoof Hearted (talk) 21:48, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Image for the president-elect

In the last week I've noticed a number of editors changing the godawful image of President-elect Trump, and I honestly can't blame them. It is of noisy quality and makes Trump look like more of a fool than he already is. As much as I absolutely loathe the man, I don't see why exactly we have to follow the consensus at Donald Trump and keep the August 2015 image in its place on this article also. Here are the alternatives:

A: 1st alternative image (first added by Nick.mon)

B: 2nd alternative image (first added by Snake bgd)

C: 3rd alternative image (added by Marxistfounder)

D: 4th alternative image (added by Bergeronp)

E: 5th alternative image (first added by Nick.mon)

F: 6th alternative image (added by AlbanGeller)

I'm OK with any except C and E, IMO even more appalling than the current image.--Nevé–selbert 06:40, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Dear Neve-selbert, any discussion about changing Trump's portrait should be centralized at Talk:Donald Trump. There is a new RfC there already, and a discussion on the merits of raising this subject before an official portrait emerges. I have stated my position there; you may want to chime in. For the record, I think the current picture is perfectly acceptable, and not disparaging the subject in any way. Trump is not exactly known as a smiling guy, and he chose a stern pose for his own book cover… We may end up with an FDR-style portrait. — JFG ^talk 06:54, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

If only this lovely image could be used instead. Such a sorry state of affairs, and such a travesty.--Nevé–selbert 07:00, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, it's very subjective. All along the campaign, I found this Hillary picture particularly unflattering, and there have been many debates over her picture choice as well, not to mention a particular photographer pushing his portraits… Ultimately it's a matter of WP:JDLI and for both candidates I guess the least-bad image outlasted the other options. I also believe that stability over time and consistency across articles are more important than style. — JFG ^talk 07:09, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Fifth is more official. Lets wait White House official portrait. ^{Snake bgd} 15:20, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Image for Barack Obama

Currently, the image used for Barack Obama is File:President Barack Obama.jpg. I was thinking we could use File:President Barack Obama (cropped).jpg, in order to get a better closeup of his face, in the style of most other presidents on this list. Thoughts? MB298 (talk) 20:09, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

• 
  Current image
• 
  Cropped version of current image
• 
  Another option would be to use his 2009 official portrait

I think we should stick to the framing of the official portrait, because the photographer and the White House have most certainly put a lot of thought into selecting this particular shot. In particular, the close-up loses the American flag, which has been featured in every presidential portrait since Nixon. Some presidents have a similar framing to the Obama shot, they don't have to all look the same just because we put them in a list. In fact, some diversity in poses provides visual anchors which help readability.

That being said, I'd be happy to use Obama's 2009 portrait, which does have the advantage of showing the subject's face from a closer perspective; that would be a better fit for a portrait gallery. In addition, for an article about the history of the Presidency, it appears more relevant to use a photograph of each President at the time he took office, whereas in Obama's main biography, a contemporary picture is more appropriate as reflecting his current appearance. — JFG ^talk 06:04, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

@JFG: Thanks for your response. I agree that we should probably use the 2009 portrait in this article after Obama's term is up. MB298 (talk) 06:07, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Sounds like the right thing to do indeed. — JFG ^talk 06:56, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

•  Implemented @MB298 and JFG: Have added File:Obama portrait crop.jpg.--Nevé–selbert 17:52, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 November 2016

Change Donald Trump's name in the president-elect sub-section to Donald J. Trump 24.225.153.187 (talk) 05:35, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

During the pre-election discussion, a consensus was reached as to how each of the two major party candidates would be represented in this table should they be elected. This list uses the article title Donald Trump, not the redirect Donald J. Trump. Wikipedia articles are titled according to the policy at WP:COMMONNAME. In my opinion, if a consensus is reached to change the title of that article, then (and only then) should the item in this list be changed. Nevertheless, thank you so much for your desire to improve this encyclopedia. YBG (talk) 05:48, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

President Elect

A friend of mine has pointed out that Trump isn't technically the President Elect until the Electoral College votes. In the meantime, he's the Presumptive President Elect. Is this true? KingTor (talk) 15:06, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

I guess, but everyone refers to him as the President-Elect, just as they have done for every man in a similar position over the years. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:25, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

For an explanation of how a person, in this case Donald Trump, can be considered president-elect even though they have not yet been elected as president by the Electoral College (United States), see President-elect of the United States. Drdpw (talk) 16:18, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Prior service

I removed "Chairman of The Trump Organization (1971–present)" from the 'Previous Service' column entry for Donald Trump, on the grounds that this isn't voluntary, military or elected public service, leaving "No prior public service." JFG has reverted, saying "The mention of Trump's prior business role has consensus; see Talk:List of Presidents of the United States#Layout for the president-elect". I'm not seeing anything in that section that discusses that entry on the table, just lots of argument about whether or not 'Inauguration Day' should be pipedlinked or not - so no, there is no consensus. In fact, the only mention of previous service (by Spartan7W) appears after the discussion was closed, and that user also questions the inclusion of chairmanship of a business. In fact, in reply to Spartan7W's comment, JFG says "Regarding the mention of his private business, I would leave this decision to an editorial debate after the election (if Trump wins)." The election is now over... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:56, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Agree: Its not that his large company isn't significant, it is, but the significance that Trump will be the first to go directly from private citizen to the Presidency is something that shouldn't be overshadowed by a private position. If it were a university position, for instance, or an institution in public life (like the Red Cross) that's one thing, but this is simple private enterprise.   Spartan7W §   17:10, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

@Spartan7W: Calling Trump's career "simple private enterprise" sounds a bit dismissive; he did turn the infamous "small loan of a million dollars" into a cool few billion… It's not like he ran a mom-and-pop hardware store in Jamaica, Queens. — JFG ^talk 17:36, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not married to the formulation, although I think mentioning what the candidate has done all his life before entering politics is quite important and WP:DUE here. As you point out, Trump's accession to the highest public office without prior public service is historically unique. This list has a "Prior service" column because all Presidents until now had been in public service in some capacity (although some were never elected, and this fact was duly noted recently, following the debate in Trump's case). Let's open an RFC. — JFG ^talk 17:26, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

An RfC? Seriously? Do we really need that amount of formality (and delay) over the inclusion of one line in a table? I would think not. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:42, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

This line has been in the list since election day (or even before if you count the preparation of drafts for the President-elect) and it was not seriously contested until you erased it. An RfC is the best way to build a fair consensus in such circumstances. Regarding delay, I don't see the rush to remove the mention; this page will likely remain stable for the next four years, so 30 days to settle a real divergence of opinion is no big deal. WP:There is no deadline. — JFG ^talk 17:58, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

No need, IMO, for an official RFC; consensus shouldn't be that difficult. The only equivalent list entry that I've come across is on the list in the Associate Justice of the Supreme Court article, where the entry under the column heading "Previous position" for 3 justices is listed as "Lawyer", because none of them had ever been elected or appointed to anything (state, federal, or even local) prior to their Supreme Court nomination. Based on this example, stating "Businessman" (or even "Businessman and entrepreneur") would seem to be most appropriate in this case. If not, then using lawyer in the AJSC page's list isn't either. Drdpw (talk) 17:51, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

@JFG: I am not 'dismissing' anything at all. It is, however, a fact that only 1 president will enter office as a life-long private citizen, and that will be President-elect Trump. This is a note of historical significance. Serving your company as its chairman is not 'service' in the sense of experience. It is not to detract from anything. However, when compared to Vice Presidents, Governors, Senators, Generals, and Congressmen, work in private enterprise, while purposeful, does not fall in line of public service. We can put "no prior public service" with a parenthetical of his private work, but Chairman of Trump org. isn't a stature of public service which orders of precedence recognize.   Spartan7W §   19:02, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Actually, yes, just reversing what's there now is a decent compromise: "Prior service: No prior public service (Businessman)"; or "Prior service: No prior public service (Chairman of The Trump Organization)" would be fair and accurate. Listing the chairmanship of a private business first under prior service is inaccurate. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:19, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Stating "No prior public service (Businessman)" works for me and is the more similar of the two suggested phrases to the verbiage used in the Associate Justice of the Supreme Court article list. Drdpw (talk) 21:49, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

In my view, the "prior service" column is meant to show what was the highest position held by each President before his election. Turns out that most of them had a high-level public role, some of them had a high-level military role, and now one of them had a high-level business role. This information says what has been those people's greatest accomplishments before winning the Presidency. If you look at it that way, Trump's role as the builder of a business empire over 40 years is just as significant a mark of accomplishment as earning a Senate seat or leading a military force. — JFG ^talk 22:26, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

We should indeed exclude mention of his Trump Enterprises chairmanship. GoodDay (talk) 23:23, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree with JFG. We should keep the status quo. Trump served in the private sector, but he still served nonetheless. Suppose Steve Jobs suddenly became President of the United States posthumously today (I know this is an odd example, but bear with me). I would not think it unreasonable to note that he was once at the helm of Apple Inc. as chief executive officer like so:

Presidency		President		Previous service	Party		Election	Vice President
45	December 2, 2016 – Incumbent		Steve Jobs 1955–2011 (Lived: 56 years)	CEO of Apple Inc. (1997–2011) (No prior public service)		Nonpartisan	?	Tim Cook

I like things the way they are. Like it or not, the Trump businesses have served many people worldwide for both good and ill. I think the (No prior public service) disclaimer is really good enough, and that there isn't really much more to say here. This isn't a fruitful discussion, in my view.--Nevé–selbert 23:40, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

This isn't a fruitful discussion because it's counter to your point-of-view (even though JFG wants 30 days more of it...) Trump did not "serve" in the private sector, he ran a business. 'Prior service: none' is a fact - though yes, apparently, we are now living in a post-fact world, so running a for-profit business is now somehow "service". Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 08:57, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

I am in no way claiming that running a business is public service; I am saying that it is a respectable and significant accomplishment worth mentioning in this column as the person's most prominent background. Perhaps changing the column title to "Prior position" would remove our disagreement? — JFG ^talk 11:17, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

A similar debate arose in Republican Party presidential primaries, 2016 and Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016, where Trump and Lessig were non-politicians, so the column header was named "Most recent position". Here, "Prior position" or "Highest prior position" would neatly match historical contents about all presidents. — JFG ^talk 11:27, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Changing the goalposts that have worked for 44 prior presidents to suit one president (elect) is hardly upholding our WP:NPOV policy. Perhaps changing the entry to "No prior public service or elected office (Chairman of The Trump Organization 1971–present)" would remove our disagreement? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:38, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

A question for the group (and possible alternative), given that these articles exist: List of Presidents of the United States by other offices held, List of Presidents of the United States by previous experience, List of Presidents of the United States by military service, and List of United States Presidents by military rank, is it necessary or vitally important that this list have a "previous service" column at all? Putting a {{details}} (For more details on) with the notation "topic=the public and personal career of each U.S. President, see ... [list of the above mentioned articles]" might be a more effective way to connect readers with information information on the pre-presidency lives of American presidents. Drdpw (talk) 15:33, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

The previous service column provides relevant and interesting information to the reader, it stays. If Steve Jobs, or any other, were elected, you should, as we should for Trump, put "No prior service" with his private work in small text in parenthesis. I'm not advocating removal, I'm advocating secondary parenthetical status when compared to the stature of public service offices previous presidents hold.(Drdpw (talk) 17:55, 3 December 2016 (UTC), Signing unsigned comment) Spartan7W ^talk 11:03, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

As stated above, I take issue with somehow ranking prior accomplishments of elected presidents based on whether their deeds happened in politics, military or business. None of those should be deemed automatically "lower stature" than another. — JFG ^talk 22:09, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

I for one don't deem Trump's coming into the presidency as a "Businessman", as opposed to "Ambassador to", "Secretary or Governor of" or U.S. Rep. or Senator from" or even "Supreme Allied Commander", as a "lower status". It is unprecedented, however, and thus befuddling to many. So, given that the previous service column on this page lists most recent prior office/appointment/rank, and unless the column were removed altogether, my suggestion is that we leave the entry as it's currently listed. Drdpw (talk) 23:13, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support removing the column entirely. There is no reason why a so-called "pervious service" column is needed on this list when every other list of heads of state or government, such as List of Presidents of Mexico or List of Prime Ministers of Canada, seem to get along just fine without it. If it is kept, Trump's entry should remain as it is now; the column is labeled "pervious service" and that can cover both public and private service. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 19:46, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose but support changing Previous service to Previous occupation position (and nothing else). Losing the column would be a waste IMO, and I would be very saddened indeed if it were to be removed. Let's keep it and just rename the title.--Nevé–selbert 22:53, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
• Keep I prefer leaving the column title as 'service' as it is an all-encompassing term that applies to political, military and business leadership positions. I note in particular that it is not uncommon to say "so-and-so served as the chairman of the board of XYZ corp for N years". Nevertheless, in the interest of reaching consensus, I wouldn't mind renaming it from 'service' to 'position', but would oppose 'occupation' as that is problematic - that would require lots of changes, e.g., Lincoln to 'lawyer'. YBG (talk) 23:14, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

  Ah, I understand. Changed my comments.--Nevé–selbert 23:20, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Moving the previous service column discussion along

After looking back over the above discussion, I was bold and did the following: I added a notation to the Previous service column header stating, "Listed here, unless otherwise noted, is the position (either with a U.S. state or the federal government, or with a private corporation) held by the individual immediately prior to becoming President of the United States." I think this wording is clear and makes the definition of "previous service" (previous position might be a better term to use, as we're listing positions of service in that column) to encompass those who were "Ambassador to", "Secretary or Governor of" or U.S. Rep. or Senator from", "Supreme Allied Commander", and "Chairman of" (yes, it's no longer necessary to state "No prior public service" in the Trump row). I also changed the negative sounding statement, "No prior elected office", into a positive sounding one, "First elected office", and moved the new statement to the dates of presidency column. I did so because it seemed a better place for this fact to be highlighted. If others think it belongs someplace else, it can be moved, no problem. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 20:09, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Good idea, Drdpw. I have cleaned up some up the markup (here). I hope this settles everything.--Nevé–selbert 21:25, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Nope. "Service" is not being chairperson of your own company. Change it to "Prior position", please, when Trump is added to the top list. So the 45th president doesn't look out of place, we couldn't possibly have that... (Ever get that deja vu feeling? I'm sure I read a book, some 32 years ago, that posited that words would now mean whatever you wanted them to mean...) Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:10, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree and state so above; I just didn't feel bold enough to change "service" to "position" w/o a green light from others when I made my earlier edit. Drdpw (talk) 23:16, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done Have changed Previous service to Prior position.--Nevé–selbert 23:55, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

For the record, I agree. Glad this discussion was resolved swiftly and amicably. — JFG ^talk 21:47, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Clarification

Should the prior position be the position held immediately prior to being President (as currently stated in the {{efn}}) or should it be the highest position held? I rather think the latter, but I'm not sure how many (if any) of the Presidents it would impact. Comments? YBG (talk) 05:54, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

It appears that the column was designed (2012) to show the last (or most recent) office held before inauguration [1]. All the cells in that column show "most recent" position prior to becoming president. Changing to "highest" would, I fear, only stir-up controversy over which is a higher position, especially if the "higher" position had been held many years prior. I counted 10 who'd possibly be impacted (depending on whether "A" is greater than "B"): Washington, Madison, Monroe, JQ Adams, WH Harrison, Polk, Pierce, Buchanan, Hayes, & McKinley. Listing immediately prior make logical sense to me. Drdpw (talk) 07:34, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I noticed that too. Most entries do list the highest prior position, so I think we should reflect this in the footnote rather than start changing the list. — JFG ^talk 09:56, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I have updated the footnote accordingly, because most entries do list the highest prior position, irrespective of dates held. Exceptions can be mentioned in each entry, as the footnote says "unless otherwise noted". I don't know enough about US history to assess the potential exceptions mentioned by Drdpw. — JFG ^talk 10:03, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I just reverted your edit. Please don't make changes to the note's consensus wording w/o their being a new consensus to do so. Thanks. Drdpw (talk) 10:42, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

No problem, let's keep discussing. Note that recent presidents such as Reagan, Carter and Nixon have their earlier highest position listed, which they left one to eight years before assuming the Presidency. We have two options:

1. Keep the footnote as "immediate prior position" and change all entries where the listed position wasn't held immediately prior to accession to the Presidency
2. Change the footnote to "prior highest position" and change all entries where the listed position wasn't the highest (by some definition of highest)

Comments on the desirability and practicality of each option? I feel option 2 makes the most sense for readers and is the closest to current list contents. — JFG ^talk 10:55, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Here's an option that would require making no changes to anyone's "priors" and only a small tweak to the notation. Maybe the problem lies with the word "immediately". What is presently listed for all presidents is the most recent position held prior to becoming president. Perhaps that is all that needs to be said. Drdpw (talk),

I would approve of just striking the word "immediately" from the footnote. That keeps it vague but correct. — JFG ^talk 07:16, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done, the word "immediately" has been stricken from the footnote. Drdpw (talk) 16:54, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

First elected office in term column

@JFG: Shouldn't it be placed in the prior service column? Placing it in the term column has nothing to do with the duration of office itself. MB298 (talk) 07:55, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

@MB298: This mention used to be in the prior service column indeed, for several presidents, and it said "no prior elected office". I don't recall the discussion to move it to the first column and rename it "first elected office"; I just reverted you for consistency but I have no strong opinion one way or another. Would fellow editors care to comment? — JFG ^talk 02:02, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

@Bastun: @Drdpw: @Neve-selbert: care to weigh in? MB298 (talk) 22:40, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Originally, I thought it best to be in the prior service column. But there is one advantage of having it in the term column is that it allows a positive statement: "First elected office" instead of a negative one "No prior elected office". Not much of a difference really, but with feelings about the current president-elect rather high, it seems that having the positive statement would invite less edit warring. So I have a slight preference for having it in the term column. YBG (talk) 22:50, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Words mean whatever we want them to mean. We must change the long-standing tables in order to avoid any possible situation whereby the Donald might possibly be offended, such as having "no prior public office" in the article, therefore do everything up to and including changing every column to remove this possibility. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:50, 29 December 2016 (UTC)