Wikipedia

Talk:List of presidents of the United States/Archive 12

< Talk:List of presidents of the United States
(Redirected from Talk:List of Presidents of the United States/Archive 12)
Latest comment: 5 years ago by Mandruss in topic Discussion of portraits- July 2019
Archive 5←Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15

Requested move 20 May 2018

Latest comment: 6 years ago94 comments31 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. On the one hand, grammar suggests we lower-case it, and WP indeed generally prefers lower-casing in general. Nevertheless, on the other hand, many people mentioned that sources often capitalize "President of the United States" even in running text, that other, similar articles are capitalized (like the Vice President), and that leaving it uncapitalized would lead to confusion (isn't the president of Walmart a "president of the United States?"). Too many good, well-informed Wikipedians argued too many good, well-informed arguments to realistically reach consensus. I defy anyone to look at this and disagree. I recommend to the next requester (in six months or so, whenever it may seem appropriate) to propose moving this page AND the List of Vice Presidents of the United States page in a single move request. That would at least solve the WP:CONSISTENCY argument, at least within the United States. (non-admin closure) Red Slash 09:49, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

List of Presidents of the United States → List of presidents of the United States – Following a move request, with no consensus to move the page, I suggest moving this title to no capitalization. Some of the page titles in this template are capitalized and some are not. I think either all of the pages should be capitalized or all pages not capitalized. The Manual of Style suggests not capitalizing job titles.. 2601:183:101:58D0:8592:D6D7:134D:F46E (talk) 20:55, 20 May 2018 (UTC) --Relisted. slakr\ talk / 02:26, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

No... a generic list would be List of presidents (a list of all presidents everywhere). This is a list of people who held a specific office (ie President of the United States). Blueboar (talk) 10:48, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
Nobody is arguing with that fact, Blueboar. The argument is whether or not "presidents" (plural) should be capitalized. There is no such office as "Presidents of the United States" is there? Of course not, so "presidents" is a common noun and should not be capitalized. The correct venue for changing that is the talk page of the style guideline, not here in a RM discussion.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  15:33, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Um... I was directly responding to Dick’s Statement that he thinks it is generic, and thus should be de-capitalized. My contention is that it IS plural, but NOT generic... and that the capitalization of the specific title carries forward when pluralized. Blueboar (talk) 16:35, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
So your opinion is that the "Presidents" in Presidents of the United States is a proper noun? Why? What could possibly make it correct to view "presidents" in this case as any but a common noun that should be lowercased? If this is just your opinion, then I can understand; however, it does go against the guideline and community consensus to place common nouns in lowercase as in "presidents", doesn't it?  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  18:28, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
No, my opinion is that the entire string "President of the United States" is a proper noun phrase, and the capitalization of that noun phrase is retained when writing it in the plural ("Presidents of the United States"). Similar to how the plural of "Ellsworth" is "Ellsworths" (not "ellsworths") Blueboar (talk) 13:51, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is ridiculous, President of the United States is an official title of an office, and should be capitalised. Besides, it's an established precedent on Wikipedia. AvRand (talk) 15:48, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Re: a proper name no longer being a proper name simply because it is in the plural... I have to disagree... let’s say we are writing about a prominent political family: “After leaving the White House, the Clintons moved to New York”.. Surely we would not change “Clintons” to lowercase just because it is plural? Blueboar (talk) 11:08, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Of course not: that's a personal name. The University of Chicago vs the top three universities in Michigan. Tony (talk) 15:22, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Not the same thing. Whether the title is about a man or the men, it still always refers to the Office of POTUS at the same time, and therefore should always be capitalized. This comment below about "overcapitalization" does not apply here. If anything, this is a case of overdecapitalization. - wolf 15:44, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
It's not "generic" when it refers to a specific Office. Not sure how people seem to keep missing the that. - wolf 22:33, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Can you clarify your rationale? What is "redundant" about a choice of capitalization? — JFG talk 11:59, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per above, "presidents" as plural referring to multiple people should be written in lower caps. "President" should be used to refer to a certain president. See also President of the United States which uses "presidents" throughout the article when referring to multiple officeholders. That is, afaict, in line with what most sources use (e.g. NYT, WaPo). Regards SoWhy 12:34, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, the multiple page move requests at List of Vice Presidents of the United States and various other federal offices lists, has resulted in No move. GoodDay (talk) 10:21, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

That's WP:OTHERSTUFF, and consensus can change a request for mass-move that was perhaps "too much to swallow" to get any consensus. — JFG talk 11:08, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
But it's very funny that we have a List of Presidents of the United States with facial hair.   — JFG talk 11:13, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
what's funnier is that Truman is on it because he didn't shave for a couple days in november of '48 עם ישראל חי (talk) 14:30, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

(break 1)

This should not be done on a per article basis. There are now 3 open RM's on the same MOS point. As Number 57 points out at this open discussion List of Prime Ministers of Israel, there are numerous featured lists that don't follow this proposed style (including List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom Seraphim System (talk) 16:28, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
To repeat what I have said above (and at the Israel RM)... Yes, we do not capitalize in List of presidents or List of prime ministers, because the singular "president" and “prime minister” are NOT a specific titles in those contexts, the terms are generic (referring to any president or any prime minister). So... we retain the non-capitalization of the singular when we pluralize. However, the titles President of the United States, Prime Minister of Israel or Prime Minister of the United Kingdom ARE specific (NOT generic)... they are capitalized in the singular. So... we should retain the capitalization of the singular when we pluralize. Blueboar (talk) 16:57, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, but without substantiation in the form of reliable sources, a style guide that says that when a title is plural and refers to more than one holder of any office, then it should retain its proper-noun status. Please show something to back up this your assertion.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  19:07, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
It would be the same guide that says the plural of the name Smith is Smiths (not "smiths"), or that the plural of Ellsworth is Ellsworths (not "ellsworths")… Blueboar (talk) 16:55, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Show such a guide that equates the names of people with titles and offices, then. That is what you are doing. You are attempting to elevate office titles to the level of personal names, and that's apples and oranges in my opinion. When we talk about presidents, kings, queens, prime ministers and such, we must differentiate between their offices and mere descriptions of their offices. Makes me wonder how many Secretaries you have. :>)  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  01:13, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Would look ridicules, to have this article at List of presidents of the United States, while we've got List of Vice Presidents of the United States. GoodDay (talk) 17:26, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Which is why I have asked the closer of that RM to reconsider, overturn and rename the list.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  18:31, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per reasons outlined in the Vice Presidents discussion. Basically, this move is misguided both as a matter of Actual Usage, as well as on "proper English" grounds. For the first, it is trivial to find reliable sources wherein "President of the United States" is routinely capitalized in-line in a sentence. Clearly usage suggests that the capital form is fine. For the second, "List of lower-case p presidents of the United States" means a list of any ol' presidents - company presidents, school board presidents, club presidents, whatever. Capitalizing "P" means it's That Kind of President, and changes the sense of "of the United States". Also, even if it's considered a draw, the capitalized form is the long-standing title, so there should be a Good Reason to overcome inertia and move it IMO. (Also, side note, this is intended for humor value not as a serious point, but here is the current officeholder's feelings on the issue .) SnowFire (talk) 02:52, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
  • The phrase "list of presidents of the United States" is a bit different from "list of presidents in the United States". The first phrase is not ambiguous as you suggest it is. You confuse it with the second phrase, I think.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  04:14, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
In practice, you are correct that in 99.8% of contexts, such a phrase will really refer to a list of POTUSs, because the group of presidents-in-general isn't a very interesting one. However, it doesn't technically have to be. "List of otters of the United States" clearly means "American otters" and is nearly synonymous with "...in the...", "List of Otters of the United States" clearly refers to some kind of special Otter that's being listed. In this case, we want to refer to a special type of president that is a proper noun, that of POTUS, so a capital makes that clear (Proper noun#English capitalization_of proper_nouns for more). SnowFire (talk) 05:08, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Hail to the Otter-in-Chief! 👏👏👏 — JFG talk 15:11, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Interestingly, if you n-gram “the US presidents” vs “the US Presidents”, the results flip... which I think is right. Blueboar (talk) 01:57, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. The gist of this as I see it is whether or not "presidents" when made plural is (a) still a part of the office title and should be uppercased, or (b) a description of the title and should be lowercased. And that is something that applies to a good many article titles on Wikipedia. So we have to agree to put RMs like this on hold until the argument is resolved in a centralized location, so that all incorrect titles can be fixed.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  01:20, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
I would agree with that. Blueboar (talk) 01:35, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Yup... if we don’t like what the MOS says, we can change it. In fact, we often change it to reflect the results of RMs like this one. Blueboar (talk) 10:54, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
"RMs" implies that some changes were supported by a consensus somewhere, but sometimes there's not even that. - wolf 11:26, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
You have that backwards... since the office is held by one person at a time, the office can only BE singular... but since former office holders continue to be referred to by the title, the title can be plural. Blueboar (talk) 10:15, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Good point. Former US Presidents continue to be referred to as "Mr. President" for life. While some sources (such as outdated guidebooks on manners) claim this shouldn't be so, it in fact is, (which is supported by other sources such as major media outlets). Even in plural form, this isn't a list of generic presidential positions, with corporations, etc., etc, but list of specific office holders... an office that is always capitalized, which shouldn't change just because were listing two of them instead of one. - theWOLFchild 11:26, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose, President of the United States when used in either the singular or plural form is a proper name in the English language, and the "P" in President or Presidents should be capitalized in either case.--TommyBoy (talk) 19:51, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
    Um. No. In the plural, presidents cannot be, and is not, a "proper name". The New York Times had a good article on capitalization that you may find useful [1].--regentspark (comment) 22:00, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Um... are you saying that a proper name can not be plural? If so, then why is the plural of the proper name Smith (ie Smiths) capitalized? Blueboar (talk) 22:26, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Proper names are names given to people, places or organizations. If we had a term for the collection that represents the presidents of the United States, then that term would, properly, be capitalized. That's not the case here where we're merely using the plural form of president which is neither a person, nor a place, nor an organization. As the NYT article I link to above states, people break the capitalization rules for emphasis (which is fine if that's the intention) but that doesn't make it grammatically correct. --regentspark (comment) 22:41, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Are you saying that “President of the United States” isn’t a proper name? If not, why is it capitalized? Blueboar (talk) 22:51, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
List of Proper Names of the United States. /end debate. - theWOLFchild 23:16, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Unfortunately that does not answer my question... I am not asking whether the word "president" is a proper name (sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't)... I am asking if the entire title "President of the United States" qualifies as a proper name? Blueboar (talk) 00:04, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

(break 2)

  • Not seein' it, Randy, since there is a difference between a plural (presidents) and a possessive (president's). Moreover, such usage will often establish the diff between a common or proper noun. In normal running text it would be "The President's Own", rather than "the president's own", because that is the informal title given to the band. "(List of) presidents of (whatever)" is not and has never been any kind of office nor title, not formal nor informal. In these cases "presidents", "vice presidents", "prime ministers", "queens", etc., are all descriptors, common nouns and noun phrases that according to Wikipedia's MOS should be lowercased.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  16:10, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm "seein' it", Paine. What's the difference between plural or possessive here? In neither case is it referring to a specific President, nor is it the lead word, yet it is capitalized. There is no difference between that title and this one. - theWOLFchild 16:43, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Post-move

To editors Randy Kryn and Thewolfchild: still don't see it, as I see a good deal of difference between a commonly used alternative (nick) name for a band or other popular entity, and an office title, the capitalization of which is determined by whether or not it is used descriptively or as a direct part of an office title. As a direct part of an office title, such as in "President of the Can of Worms", the short title "President" is capitalized. When the title is descriptive, such as in "the president", "Let's list all the presidents of the Can of Worms," and so on, then "president" and "presidents" should, to be grammatically correct and in line with Wikipedia's MOS, remain in lowercase. There is no such office title as "Presidents of the United States".  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  20:54, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

The RM is closed. let it go already. - theWOLFchild 21:14, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
I am at a loss to understand why so many editors think that this title should be capitalized. I used to blame this kind of thing on WP:JOBTITLES. But that guideline has been rewritten so that it is much clearer now. In this title, presidents is plural, so it clearly refers to a group of individuals rather than to an office. Perhaps it is respect capitalization, like writing God instead of god. Or perhaps they are unduly influenced by the abbreviation POTUS. (I should add that the examples the guideline gives for "President of the United States" and "King of France and Navarre" are still wrong. Both examples should be lower cased since they refer to a person rather than to an office.) Nine Zulu queens (talk) 08:56, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Read the “keep” comments in the RM the and you will find out why we think it should be capitalized. Happy to discuss further in another venue... but give it a rest here. Blueboar (talk) 10:52, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
To editor Thewolfchild: the RM is closed, yes, however your question was answered and the issue is still quite open, so it won't be "let go" by any of us. There is still the confusing "whether or not?" question that needs to be answered, and it was not resolved with a no consensus close of this RM!  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  13:48, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes, well... feel free to bring all that up six months from now like the closing admin suggested. Or not. Either way, please stop pinging me. This page is on my watchlist, I'll see when the next RM gets posted, (Jan? Feb? 2019...) - theWOLFchild 14:49, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
As you wish, Thewolfchild; however, this issue should not be settled with a new RM in six months. It applies to several misnamed pages on Wikipedia and will require a discussion of a broader nature in a centralized location.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  18:32, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
When the time comes for a centralized discussion, please let us know. For now, I think it best to let things lie dormant for a while. Blueboar (talk) 20:24, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
The time has come and no amount of ostriching can change that. There will continue to be editors who want to move articles like this one and List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom to their decapped forms, and articles like List of presidents of the United States by military rank to their uppercased forms. There are many examples of each style of titling. This issue will only become dormant when there is consistency in titling.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  04:09, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
...or when people learn to wp:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. - theWOLFchild 23:07, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
That was a really poorly reasoned close, though I'm not sure it's useful to get into why in much detail. The two salients points are that whether people off-WP are doing this or that is irrelevant; we have our own style guide, and it is quite clear on the matter. Secondarily, it's not the closer's job to present new pro and con arguments, like their theory that the president of Walmart is also a "president of the United States" (which is grammatically and semantically wrong in the first place; that would be a president in the United States, but no native speaker of English would put it that way). I could go on, but that's sufficient.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:49, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Trump portrait

Latest comment: 6 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion

Does anyone else think that the crop on the Trump portrait is too tight? Obama's seems a little too tight too. Most of the other presidential portraits seem to be a wider angle. The uncropped originals seem a little too far, but maybe we could do a new crop somewhere in between. Trump and Obama's portraits seem too "in your face" to me. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:24, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

There was a recent RfC here (about a month ago, see archive #11) about the portraits. The consensus was both in favor of the current list, and in favour of requiring further consensus to make any changes. FYI - theWOLFchild 20:30, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Agree: Trump and Obama are cropped too tight, and this list would be well-served by an intermediate setting. On the other hand, Gerald Ford could you some closer focus. @Thewolfchild: Note that Rreagan007 is doing the right thing by laying out his proposed change here, we'll see if consensus emerges. — JFG talk 01:02, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
@JFG: I didn't say he wasn't "doing the right thing". As for the cropped images, you'll see from my comment here that I basically agree. - theWOLFchild 01:13, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Sounds good, thx. — JFG talk 01:37, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
I don't think so, but that is just my opinion. I tried zooming Trump's picture out, but was reverted by Foghe on May 2. Corky 02:20, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Can you clarify? Do you support the current closeups, the zoomed-out originals, or something in between? — JFG talk 02:37, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm neutral on Trump's portrait. I think it's fine, but I won't oppose it being zoomed out just a smidge. Obama's is fine. Corky 02:44, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
After further thought, I believe Trump's cropped version is fine. If it had a darker background, I think zooming out would be fine, but right now I see it as a contrast issue. Corky 23:49, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Cropped images

This issue is now being discussed at Wikipedia talk: Manual of Style/Images#Cropped images FYI - theWOLFchild 23:11, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

John Quincy Adams portrait

Latest comment: 6 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
 
 

I believe the current portrait for John Quincy Adams is inferior in comparison to the other Presidents on this list and should be replaced, I nominate this one as painted by George Caleb Bingham from 1844 as a suitable replacement. Thoughts? Bold and Brash (talk) 12:19, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

It focuses on his chest and up in the same aspect as the other Presidents, while the current one is a full body shot. Here's the current image as reference. Bold and Brash (talk) 17:23, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
The current one (not "full body" btw), is the better portrait. It shows more detail and is more realistic. The recent infatuation that some users seem to have with zooming in on the subjects faces aside, this particular suggestion looks like it's been airbrushed to hide his wrinkles, like for a magazine cover or something. Its looks rather silly, especially in comparison to other image. (imho) - theWOLFchild 00:16, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Its from the original painting which didn't have wrinkles tho. I don't know if its an "infatuation" per se, but I sure would be apart of it since zooming on the face better identifies the individual for the reader, the current image has Adams's face very blurry due to it not being the core focus of the painting. Bold and Brash (talk) 10:23, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Well, like I've said to others; the great thing about Wikipedia is that it's not a book, you can tap on an image and enlarge it as much as you like. Zoom right in on the pores of his nose if you want... - theWOLFchild 20:02, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Jackson and Adam Jr. both have photos of each other

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Why is there paintings in their section? AHC300 (talk) 20:51, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

John Quincy Adams Being A Part of The National Republican Party

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

John Quincy Adams was a Part Of The National Republican Party When he Was President Freedy 31 (talk) 04:06, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

If he had gotten a second term, that' likely what his 'second term' would've been under. GoodDay (talk) 04:11, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Ok? Freedy 31 (talk) 22:18, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

John Tyler Being a part of the National Democratic Republican Party

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Would John Tyler be apart of The National Democratic Republican Party Freedy 31 (talk) 22:54, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

the party only existed for a couple months עם ישראל חי (talk) 23:14, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
It was a temporary party which came to an end, when President Tyler dropped out of the 1844 race. He didn't even have a vice presidential running-mate, during his brief campaign. PS: Of course, neither did President Van Buren during his 1840 re-election campaign :) GoodDay (talk) 23:25, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Archive 5←Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15

Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2019

Latest comment: 5 years ago11 comments7 people in discussion

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

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

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

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

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

the intro section is mostly trivia

Latest comment: 5 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

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

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

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

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


Buchanan was senator & secretary of state before Potus

Latest comment: 5 years ago11 comments8 people in discussion

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

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

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

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

John Quincy Adams portrait

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

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

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

Discussion of portraits- July 2019

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

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

I don't see a problem with the changes per se but I prefer the old Jackson since it's more natural than the proposed one. File:Martin Van Buren by Mathew Brady c1855-58.jpg is a featured picture, so it might actually be a better one than the old black and white one. Regards SoWhy 19:44, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
The remedy for edit warring is WP:AN3, not an unwritten local "discuss first" rule that turns the BRD process on its head. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:19, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_presidents_of_the_United_States/Archive_12&oldid=988274863"